ON INDIVIDUALISM, COLLECTIVISM AND INTERRELATIONISM
ON INDIVIDUALISM, COLLECTIVISM AND INTERRELATIONISM
复制标题
论个人主义、集体主义和相互关系主义
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-2265.1990.tb01149.x
复制
发表时间：
1990
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Carter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Carter
关于个人主义和集体主义的争论已经引起了广泛的关注。双方阵营都对对方进行了指责，但对方的回应是，各种反对意见都没有击中要害。此外，讨论现在已经变得如此之多，以至于很难清楚地确定辩论中各自的立场究竟是什么。为了使这个话题更清晰一些，我将不以尊重各自支持者所选择的有利分类的方式来看待“个人主义”和“集体主义”，因为这只会模糊每一种立场之间的差异，而是以一种孤立的方式来看待每一种立场，使其成为那些拒绝它的人所嘲笑的批评对象。通过采取这种不同寻常的策略，我将确保针对每一立场的各种批评都能击中目标。现在，采用这样一种“不仁慈的原则”，乍一看，似乎是一种非常奇怪的做法。有什么能证明一个观点的正当性，不是根据那些支持它的人，而是根据那些反对它的人？当然，它会被反对，如果一个立场要被批评，那么它应该以最强烈的形式被批评。而那些对它毫不同情的人对它的描述，很难说是对它最有利的描述。这无疑是正确的。然而，个人主义/集体主义辩论的参与者试图将他们各自的立场定义为相互排斥和共同详尽的。因此，两个阵营都提前排除了他们之间任何共同点的可能性。当不同的交战方偶尔会从一个热点立场上争论不休时，这一点尤其令人困惑。
A great deal of ink has been spilled over the debate between individualism and collectivism. Accusations have been levelled by each camp against the other, only to meet the response that the various objections have missed the mark. Moreover, the discussion has now become so voluminous that it is difficult to ascertain clearly what the respective positions in the debate actually are. With the hope of introducing some clarity into this topic, I shall view ‘individualism’and ‘collectivism’not in a way which respects the favourable categorizations chosen by their respective supporters-for that has only served to obscure the differences between each position-but in a manner which isolates each position as the object of criticism derided by those who reject it. By adopting this unusual strategy, I shall ensure that the various criticisms which have been levelled against each position hit the target. Now adopting such a ‘principle of uncharity’might, at first glance, appear to be a signally odd approach to take. What could possibly justify defining a standpoint not in the terms of those who argue for it, but in the terms of those who oppose it? Surely, it will be objected, if a position is to be criticized, then it should be criticized in its strongest form? And its characterization by those who show it no sympathy can hardly be its most favourable presentation. This is undoubtedly true. However, participants in the in-dividualism/collectivism debate have attempted to define their respective positions as mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.’Thus, both camps have ruled out in advance all possibility of any common ground being shared between them. And this is especially confusing when the various belligerents oc-casionally amcar lo argur from a\tandpoint which is common to hot ti positions.