弗朗西斯·福山&&&&&& 弗朗西斯·福山（Francis Fukuyama，1952年10月27日—），生于芝加哥，日裔美籍学者。其父在修得社会学博士，其母为经济学系创始人的女儿。曾就读于，主修古典文献与政治，获得文学学士学位；后于获得政治博士学位，师从（Samuel Huntington。他曾担任美国国务院政策计划处副主任，执教于和，现为高级研究员，乔治曼森（George Mason）大学公共政策系教授。 &　　著有《历史之终结与最后一人》，《后人类未来－基因工程的人性浩劫》，《信任─社会德性与繁荣的创造》，《强国论》，《大分裂：人类本性与社会秩序的重建》等著作。　　福山是美国的代表人物，以（The End of History and the Last Man）一书闻名。他在这本书中认为，在全球范围内的广泛传播，标志着人类社会文化演进的终结，并且成为人类政府的终极形式。　　主要著作弗朗西斯·福山近照&　　《与第三世界：过去三十年》　　《历史之终结与最後一人》，又译《历史的终结与报废的人》李永炽译，（1993）　　《信任：社会美德与创造经济繁荣》& 李宛蓉译，（2004）　　《跨越断层+人性与社会秩序重建》　　省思民与资本主义关系的『强国论』阎纪宇译，时报出版社（2005）　　《大分裂：人类本性与社会秩序的重建》 刘榜离等译，（2002）　　《国家构建：21世纪的国家治理与世界秩序》　　《处在十字路口：民主权力与新的遗产》　　主要观点&　　法兰西斯·福山在1989年提出现已家喻户晓的宣示：由于「自由民主的主要替代方案自我耗弱」，我们所知的历史已臻于终点。十年后，他修正自己的论点：我们还没抵达历史终点，因为，我们仍未臻於科学终点。福山主张日后最大的进展是在生命科学方面，从而自问这修正人类行为的能力，对自由民主会产生什么影响。　　为重新引导当代议论，福山强调，人通过历史来理解人性的进程变动不居，从柏拉图和亚里斯多德的人有「自然目标」信念，到现代之徒与独裁者为意识型态目标而设法再造人类的理念，不一而足。福山掷地有声地主张，生技革命（干扰基因种系）的终极评价是，即便是一般想要「改良」子女的为人父母者，也有能力密作后代的DNA。弗朗西斯·福山的国家理论中文翻译　　“本书的创作灵感源自两处，”弗朗西斯·福山在他的新书《政治秩序诸起源》的序言中如是写道。“是我在的导师，他于1968年出版的著作《变化社会中的政治秩序》经久不衰。亨廷顿邀请我为该书的再版作序时，我第一次萌生了撰写本书的想法。”此外，福山认为：“羸弱或者失败的国家已成为当今世界上许多严重问题的根源，”他花费十载研究该议题，由此在2004年出版了著作《国家构建：21世纪的国家治理与世界秩序》，并从中再次获得了《政治秩序诸起源》的写作灵感。政治学者：弗朗西斯·福山　　在关于“起源”的讨论之初，福山显得虚怀若谷。1989年，他在《国家利益》杂志上发表了《历史的终结》一文，随即出版了著作《历史之终结与最后一人》，在学术界引起了轩然大波，福山由此为人熟知，其论文更是引发了全球范围内的讨论：“我们见证的或许不仅仅是冷战的终结，或者战后某个历史阶段的过去，而是历史的终结。也就是说，人类意识形态演变的终结，和西方自由民主作为人类政府最终形式的普遍化。　　在此后的20年间，福山修正了他的观点，但未曾完全摈弃。在《政治秩序诸起源》起初规划的两卷里，他写道：“伟大的黑格尔解读者亚历山大·科耶夫认为，当1806年在耶拿大破普鲁士军队，向黑格尔所在的欧洲传播自由和平等的原则时，历史已经终结。”福山还补充道：“时至今日，我认为仍需重视科耶夫的论断。现代政治秩序的三要素--强大的国家、国家对于法治的尊崇和全体公民对政府的问责--18世纪末就已在世界的某个地方确立实施。”　　巧合的是，三要素的首次统一是在，尽管其他深受革新影响的西北欧国家，诸如、和，“在19世纪前也将国家、法治和政府问责成功地结合在了一起”。然而，在英国融合三要素之前，在欧洲诸国尚处工业和民主革命之际，现代政治制度的三要素已经分别在不同的近代文明中发挥作用：“强大的国家政权在形成已久，法治在蔚然成风，负责任的政府也已在中东、欧洲和英国首度出现。”　　简化论将政治和社会体系看成是潜在的经济或技术结构的附带现象，福山对此持反对意见。“不同的社会体系，差异万千，选择的发展道路也各不相同，如果不认真思索这些现象的根本原因，就不可能创立出任何有意义的政治发展理论。”尤其值得一提的是，“宗教问题不能简单地从先前的物质条件的角度得到解释。”　　《政治秩序诸起源》的大部分篇章致力于讲述的是，在18世纪英国融合三要素之前，国家、法治和政府问责是怎样在不同的社会中独立发展的。尽管福山的早期著作被批评含有决定论的成分，他还是强调了偶发事件的作用。现代政治体系的起源是“复杂的，并处于具体环境之下”。例如，欧洲的多亲属大家庭在近代早期开始瓦解，这部分归因于中世纪教堂的权势，也意味着“16世纪，在意大利、英国和荷兰新兴的资本主义经济未能克服因亲属关系而结成的庞大团体的阻力，这样的团体可见于印度和中国，有大量的财产需要保护。”　　有鉴于此，《政治秩序诸起源》延续了福山早期作品的风格，其对新古典主义经济学的评价，较之于规范性的当代社会科学的推崇态度，可谓大相径庭。福山的思想在很大程度上源自于19世纪传统的社会学大家，如韦伯、涂尔干、马克思和黑格尔。在《历史的终结》一文中，福山更是将尊奉为社会学家。秉承着这样的社会学传统，福山的政治观如同历史和进化论的产物，摈弃了洛克派的自然权利理论和市场原教旨主义，以及“曼彻斯特自由开明主义”，这些都是绝对论的产物。弗里德里希·哈耶克试图从经济人的角度解释社会，福山反对这样的自由意志主义者，并表示对于繁荣的资本主义经济来说，强大有力的国家是前提。　　在运用了生态社会学的理论，吸纳了先前对于抽象自然权利自由主义的批评之后，福山写道：“没有初具社会形态的国家，就没有人类。那些认为人类曾经一度作为孤立的个体生存，在无政府状态下通过暴力相互作用（霍布斯），或彼此愚昧无知，相安无事地接触（卢梭）的观点，是错误的。”　　文艺复兴和启蒙运动的自由主义都曾经从自然权利的传统中汲取力量，福山却一再漠视自然权利的重要性，一些读者认为福山此举过于极端。福山的历史相对论和思想塑造政治秩序的主张也因独树一帜而备受争议，他用古婆罗门的神学来解释印度的社会体制，却没有采用相同的方法来分析17世纪英国的平权主义者和洛克派哲学家，他们对于英美法三国的革命影响深远。福山如同19世纪的历史相对论主义者一样，接受现代的种种理论，并从日耳曼部落的风俗和中世纪的公司角度追溯现代西方体制的源头。他一方面倡导民主的政治秩序，一方面又质疑最初支撑该秩序的理论，他认为，普遍人权以及道德和认识论的个人主义都被误解了。在计划出版的第二卷著作里，福山将阐述他如何看待孕育美法两国革命的共和主义的观点，饶有趣味，令人期待。　　如前所述，《政治秩序诸起源》是一次严密的尝试，力图通过多学科的综合研究，形成对人类历史的概览。有人质疑福山获取成功的雄心壮志，有人反对福山的提出的特定细节和结论，尽管如此，福山的创新和论证仍给他们留下了深刻的印象，带来了非凡的启迪。毋庸置疑，这本书饱含创意，极富见解，论证有力，是福山，这位当代先锋公共知识分子的一项伟大成就。　　迈克尔·林德系新美国基金会经济发展项目政策制定主任（弗朗西斯·福山《政治秩序诸起源：从史前到法国革命》，585页，美国Farrar, Straus & Giroux出版社，定价35美元）　　英文原文　　Michael Lind　　Fukuyama's Theory of the State (NYT, April 15, 2011)　　“This book has two origins,” Francis Fukuyama writes in the preface to “The Origins of Political Order.” “The first arose when my mentor, Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, asked me to write a foreword to a reprint edition of his 1968 classic, 'Political Order in Changing Societies.' “ Its second inspiration was the decade that Fukuyama spent studying “the real-world problems of weak and failed states” and that inspired his 2004 book “State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century.”　　In discussing the origins of “The Origins,” Fukuyama is being modest, if not disingenuous. He is best known for the international sensation caused by the publication of his 1989 essay “The End of History?” in the foreign policy journal The National Interest and the subsequent book “The End of History and the Last Man.” His thesis ignited a global debate: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the cold war, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the endpoint of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”　　In the 20 years since, Fukuyama has qualified his argument, but he has not abandoned it. In “The Origins of Political Order,” the first of a projected two volumes, he writes: “Alexandre Kojève, the great Russian-French interpreter of Hegel, argued that history as such had ended in the year 1806 with the Battle of Jena-Auerstadt, when Napoleon defeated the Prussian monarchy and brought the principles of liberty and equality to Hegel's part of Europe.” And he continues: “I believe that Kojève's assertion still deserves to be taken seriously. The three components of a modern political order - a strong and capable state, the state's subordination to a rule of law and government accountability to all citizens - had all been established in one or another part of the world by the end of the 18th century.”　　By chance, these three elements were united for the first time in Britain, although other northwestern European countries that were influenced by the Reformation, like the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, “also succeeded in putting together the state, rule of law and accountability in a single package by the 19th century.” But before their combination in Britain and its neighbors at the time of the industrial and democratic revolutions, the three elements of modern political order had evolved separately in different premodern civilizations: “China had developed a pow the rule of law existed in India, the Middle East and E and in Britain, accountable government appeared for the first time.”　　Most of “The Origins of Political Order” is devoted to telling the story of how the state, the rule of law and accountability happened to evolve independently in different societies, before their combination in 18th-century Britain. Having been accused of determinism by some critics of his earlier work, Fukuyama emphasizes the role of contingency. The origins of modern political institutions were “complex and context-specific.” For example, the decline in importance of extended families in early modern Europe, which resulted in part from the power of the medieval church, meant that “an emerging capitalist economy in Italy, England and the Netherlands in the 16th century did not have to overcome the resistance of large corporately organized kinship groups with substantial property to protect, as in India and China.”　　Fukuyama rejects reductionist attempts to explain political and social institutions as mere epiphenomena of underlying economic or technological structures. “It is impossible to develop any meaningful theory of political development without treating ideas as fundamental causes of why societies differ and follow distinct development paths.” In particular, “religion can never be explained simply by reference to prior material conditions.”　　For this reason, “The Origins of Political Order,” like Fukuyama's earlier work, is at odds with the contemporary elevation of neoclassical economics as the paradigmatic social science. His intellectual affinities are with the great thinkers of the 19th-century sociological tradition like Weber, Durkheim and Marx, as well as with Hegel, whom Fukuyama tellingly identified as a social scientist in “The End of History?” With this sociological tradition, Fukuyama shares a view of politics as a product of history and evolution, and a rejection of the absolutism of Lockean natural rights theory and market fundamentalism, or “Manchester liberalism.” Against libertarians like Friedrich Hayek, who try to explain society in terms of Homo economicus, he says that a strong and capable state has always been a precondition for a flourishing capitalist economy.　　Drawing on recent work in sociobiology as well as older critiques of abstract natural rights liberalism, Fukuyama writes: “Human beings never existed in a presocial state. The idea that human beings at one time existed as isolated individuals, who interacted either through anarchic violence (Hobbes) or in pacific ignorance of one another (Rousseau), is not correct.”　　Some readers, however, may think that Fukuyama goes too far in de-emphasizing the natural rights tradition that inspired the Renaissance and Enlightenment liberalism. Here Fukuyama's historicism and his insistence that ideas themselves shape political order are arguably at odds. He takes the theology of ancient Brahmins seriously as an explanation for the organization of Indian society, but does not do the same for the thinking of 17th-century English Levellers and Lockeans who influenced the English, American and French revolutions. Like 19th-century historicists, who accepted much of modernity while seeking to trace the origins of modern Western institutions to the customs of Germanic tribes or the corporations of medieval society, Fukuyama is in the position of favoring a democratic political order while arguing that the theories that first justified it, like universal rights and moral and epistemological individualism, were mistaken. It will be interesting to see how Fukuyama deals with the ideas that shaped the republicanism of the American and French revolutions in his promised second volume.　　That said, “The Origins of Political Order” is a rigorous attempt to create a synoptic view of human history by means of a synthesis of research in many disciplines. Even those who doubt that such an enterprise can succeed or who take issue with particular details or conclusions can be impressed by Fukuyama's audacity and stimulated by his arguments. Ambitious, erudite and eloquent, this book is undeniably a major achievement by one of the leading public intellectuals of our time.　　Michael Lind is the policy director of the economic growth program at the New America Foundation.　　(THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL ORDER: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution,By Francis Fukuyama& 585 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $35.)（转载自：中国选举与治理网）
词条分类[]
按学科分类：
按行业分类：
按地域分类：
开放式分类：
注释信息[]
扩展阅读[]
1.译言网：
相关词条[]
申明：1.中文百科在线的词条资料来自网友（一些人是某学科领域的专家）贡献，供您查阅参考。一些和您切身相关的具体问题（特别是健康、经济、法律相关问题），出于审慎起见，建议咨询专业人士以获得更有针对性的答案。2.中文百科的词条（含所附图片）系由网友上传，如果涉嫌侵权，请与客服联系，我们将及时给予删除。3.如需转载本页面内容，请注明来源于www.zwbk.org
词条保护申请
* 如果用户不希望该词条被修改,可以申请词条保护
* 管理员审核通过后,该词条会被设为不能修改
注意：只有该词条的创建者才能申请词条保护
本条目由以下用户参与贡献
评论评论内容为网友展开的讨论，与本站观点立场无关[]