社会公正观研究：对比与讨论财产纠纷事件中的衡平原则

对比与讨论

上述两类关系中发生的财产纠纷事件,显示当事人的观念具有以下特征:

(1)无论在何种关系情境中,衡平原则是相对主导性的。

(2)在陌生人的关系情境中,衡平原则基本是权利导向的。即使纠纷的一方是“集体”或“公共”利益,也没有影响个体的一方对产权逻辑的遵循,从而宣称衡平原则。

(3)在家庭或亲缘关系情境中,衡平原则仍然是支配性的规则,但它是义务导向的。在亲缘关系的家庭情境中,赡养被公认为是父母财产分配、继承的条件。

(4)这些案例证明,衡平原则作为一种支配性公正规则的同时,还证明,同为衡平的形式,在以关系为框架的不同情境中有着不同的内容。

这说明,在中国法律实践中,对于当事人而言,财富分配的公正标准,无论在什么关系中,都有相对稳定的主要原则,即衡平原则,它并不因为关系情景的不同而发生根本的改变。

作者:刘莉,博士,西南政法大学中国社会稳定与危机管理研究中心,副研究员

参考文献

费孝通.家庭结构中的老年赡养问题.北京大学学报, 1983(3)

——.乡土中国生育制度.北京:北京大学出版社, 1998

高道蕴等编.美国学者论中国法律传统.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1994

黄光国.人情与面子:中国人的权力游戏.载黄光国编.中国人的权力游戏.台北:巨流图书公司, 1988

——.儒家思想中的正义观.载杨国枢,黄光国主编.中国人的心理与行为.台北:桂冠图书公司, 1991

黄宗智.中国研究的规范认识危机:论社会经济史中的悖论现象.香港:牛津大学出版社, 1994

——.清代的法律、社会与文化:民法的表达与实践.上海:上海书店出版社, 2001

——.法典、习俗与司法实践:清代与民国的比较.上海:上海书店出版社, 2003

——.离婚法实践:当代中国法庭调解制度的起源、虚构和现实,中国乡村研究(第4辑).北京:社会科学文献出版社, 2006

李美枝.内团体偏私的文化差异:中美大学生的比较.载杨国枢,余安邦主编.中国人的心理与行为.台北:桂冠图书公司, 1992

李艳梅.人际亲疏度个人主义—集体主义对公平判断的影响.社会心理学研究, 1996(3)

梁治平.法律的文化解释.北京:三联出版社, 1994

——.清代习惯法.社会与国家.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1996

[美]罗尔斯.正义论.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2000

[美]诺齐克.无政府、国家与乌托邦.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1991

王斯福.面子的方位——当代中国乡村的公共空间与对公益的说法.载王铭铭,王斯福主编.乡土社会的秩序、公正与权威.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1997

[美]沃尔泽.正义诸领域——为多元主义与平等一辩.南京:译林出版社, 2002

许烺光.美国人与中国人——两种生活方式比较.北京:华夏出版社, 1989

——.宗族、种姓、俱乐部.北京:华夏出版社, 1990

——.祖荫下:中国乡村的亲属,人格与社会流动.台北:南天书局, 2001

严奇峰.互动平衡理论——从儒家伦范与正义观点探讨本土之和谐人际互动关系.中原学报, 1993(22)

杨国枢.中国人的社会取向:社会互动的观点.载杨国枢,余安邦主编.中国人的心理与行为.台北:桂冠图书公司, 1993

杨宜音.“自己人”:一项有关中国关系分类的个案研究.本土心理学研究(台北), 2000(6),重刊于中国社会学(第4卷).上海:上海人民出版社, 2005

杨中芳.试论中国人的“自己”:理论与研究方向.载杨中芳,高尚仁主编.中国人·中国心——人格与社会篇.台北:远流出版公司, 1990

——.人际关系与人际情感的构念化.本土心理学研究(台北), 1999(12)

杨中芳、许志超.平均分配与不公平感.中华心理学刊(台北), 1986(26)

[美]尤伊克、[美]西尔贝.法律的公共空间——日常生活中的故事.北京:商务印书馆, 2005

翟学伟.个人地位:一个概念及其分析框架——中国日常社会的真实建构,中国社会学(第4卷).上海:上海人民出版社, 2005[原文刊于:中国社会科学, 1999(4),有修改;另收入,翟学伟.人情、面子与权力的再生产.北京:北京大学出版社, 2005,名为“人地位:从一个概念到一种日常社会学分析框架”]

——.特殊主义抑或普遍主义:中国人行为研究模式的视角转换.社会理论学报, 2005(第八卷,第一期)

张国华.中国法律思想史新编.北京:北京大学出版社, 1998

张志学.中国人的分配正义.载杨国枢,黄光国,杨中芳编.华人本土心理学(下).台北:远流出版公司, 2005

赵晓力.关系/事件、行动策略和法律的叙事.载王铭铭,王斯福主编.乡土社会的秩序、公正与权威.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1997

赵旭东.公正与权威——乡土社会的纠纷解决与权威多元.天津:天津古籍出版社, 2003

赵志裕.义:中国社会的公平观.载高尚仁,杨中芳编.中国人·中国心——传统篇.台北:远流出版公司, 1991

——.义与利.载何友晖,彭泗清,赵志裕.世道人心.香港:三联书店, 2006

朱苏力.送法下乡.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2000

——.法治及其本土资源(修订版).北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2004

朱真如、杨国枢.个人现代性与相对作业量对报酬分配行为的影响.台北“中央研究院”民族学研究所集刊, 1976(14)

[日]滋贺秀三.清代诉讼制度之民事法源的概括性考察——情、理、法.载王亚新,梁治平编.明清时期的民事审判与民间契约.北京:法律出版社, 1998

——.中国法文化的考察——以诉讼的形态为素材.载王亚新,梁治平编.明清时期的民事审判与民间契约.北京:法律出版社, 1998

Adams, J. S. Inequity in Social Exchange, In Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. NY: Academic Press, 267-299, 1965

Barrett-Howard, Edith＆Tom R. Tyler. Procedural Justice as a Criterion in Allocation Decisions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296-304, 1986

Carolyn L. Hafer＆Laurent Bègue. Experimental Research on Just-World Theory: Problems, Developments, and Future Chanllenges, Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167, 2005

Carrithers, M., S. Collins＆S. Lukes, eds. The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1985(www.xing528.com)

Chiu, Chi-Yue(赵志裕). Procedural Justice and Interactional Contexts in Chinese Society. Unpublished manuscript. Hong Kong University, 1987

———. Role Expectation as the Principal Criterion in Justice Judgment Among Hong Kong Chinese Students, The Journal of Psychology, 125, 557-565, 2001

———. Social Psychology of Culture. NY:Psychology Press, 2007

Cohen, Myron L. Family Management and Family Division in Contemporary Rural China, The China Quarterly, No. 130, 357-377, 1992

Cook, Karen S.＆Karen A. Hegtvedt. Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality, Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 217-241, 1983

Cotterrel, Roger, ed., Sociological Perspectives on Law, Vol. 1, Burlington: Ashgate, 2001

David Rubinstein. The Concept of Justice in Sociology, Theory and Society, 17, 527-550, 1998

Deutsch, M. Equity, Equality, and Need:What Determines Which Value Will Be Used As the Basis of Distributive Justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149, 1975

Ebrey, Patricia B. Family and Property in Sung China:Yüan Ts“ai”s Percepts for Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984

Hamilton, V. Lee＆Joseph Sanders. Every day Justice:Responsibility and the Individual in Japan and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992

Hochman, Harold M＆James D. Rodgers. Pareto Optimal Redistribution, The American Economic Review, 59, 542-557, 1969

Hsu, F. L. K.Under the Ancestors’Shadow: Chinese Culture and Personality. New York:Columbia University Press, 1948

Hui, C. H., Trandis, H. C.＆Yee, C. Cultural Difference in Reward Allocation: Is Collectivism the Explanation? British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 145-157, 1991

Jacobs, J. B. A Preliminary Model of Particularistic Tie in Chinese Cultural Setting, In S. L. Greenblatt, R. W. Wilson＆A. A. Wilson, eds., Social Interaction in Chinese Society. New York:Praeger, 1979

Jing-Lih Farh, P. Chiristopher Earley＆Shu-Chi Lin. Cultural Analysis of Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese Society, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444, 1997

Judith N. Shklar. American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion. Cambridge and London: Harvard, 1991

Kahn, A., Robn E. Nelson, William P. Gaeddert,＆June L. Hearn. The Justice Process: Deciding upon Equity and Equality, Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 3-8, 1982

Kirchheimer, Otto. Political Justice: The Use of Legal Procedure for Political Ends. Princeton: New Jersey Princeton University Press, 1961

Leung, K.,＆Bond, M. H. How Chinese and Americans Reward Task-related Contributions: A Preliminary Study, Psychologia(y), 25, 32-39, 1982

Liu, X. In One’s Own Shadow: An Ethnographic Account of the Conditon of Post-reform rural China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000

Madson, Richard. Morality and Power in A Chinese Village. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984

Marshall, T. H. Class, Citizenship, and Social Development. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1977

Merphy, Walter F. An Ordering of Constitutional Values, Cal. L. Rev. 703, 1979

Morgan, William R. Equality, Equity, and Procedural Justice in Social Exchange, Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 71-75, 1979

Nee, Victor. A Theory of Market Transition: From Redistribution to Markets in State Socialism, In American Sociological Review, 54, 663-681, 1989

Nelken, David. Law in Action or Living Law?Back to the Beginning in Sociology of Law, In Roger Cotterrel, ed., Sociological Perspectives on Law, Volume 1, Burlington: Ashgate, 2001

Norman F Cantor. Imagining the Law:Common Law and the Foundation of the American Legal System. NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997

Oi, Jean C. State and Peasant in Contemporary China:The Political Economy of Village Government. Berkely: University of California Press, 1989

Podolny, Joel M. A Status-Based of Market Competition, The American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829-872, 1993

Ragin, Charles C.＆Howard S. Becker, eds.What Is a Case: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1992

Rosenfeld, Michel. Modern Constitutionalism as Interplay between Identity and Diversity, In Constitutionalism, Identity, Difference, and Legitimacy, In Michel Rosenfeld, ed., Durham and London:Duke University Press, 1994

Rubinstein, D. The Concept of Justice in Sociology, Theory and Society, 17, 527-550, 1988

Sabbagh, Clara. A Taxonomy of Normative and Empirically Oriented Theories of Distributive Justice, Social Justice Research, 14, 237-263, 2001

Sampson, E. E. The Decentralization of Identity: Toward a Revised Concept of Personal and Social Order, American Psychologist, 36, 730-734, 1985

Shapiro, E. G. Effects of Expectations of Future Interaction on Reward Allocation in Dyads: Equity or Equality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 873-880, 1975

Thacher, David. The Normative Casse Study, American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1631-1676, 2006

Tuner, Bryan S. Marx and the End of Orientalism. London: Allen and Unwin Press, 1978

——,＆Peter Hamilton. eds. Citizenship:Critical Concepts. NY:Routledge, 1994

Tyler, Tom R.Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990

Walder, Andrew G. Communist Neo-traditionalism:Work and Authority in Chinese industry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986

Wank, David. Commodifying Communism:Business, Trust, and Politics in Chinese City. New York: University of Cambridge Press, 1999

Winship, Christopher＆Michael Mandel. Roles and Positions: A Critique and Extension of the Blockmodeling Approach, In Samuel Leinhardt, ed., Sociological Methodology. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1983

Yang, C. F.(杨中芳) Psycho Culture Foundations of Informal Group: The Issues of Loyalty, Sincerity, and Trust, In L. Dittmer, H. Fukui＆Lee, eds., Informal Politics in East Asia. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2000

Yin, Robert K.＆Karen A. Heald. Using the Case Survey Method to Analyze Policy Studies, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 371-381, 1975

Young, Stephen B. The Concept of Justice in Pre-imperial China, In Rechard W. Wilson, ed., Moral Behavior in Chinese Society. New York: Praeger, 38-72, 1981

Zhou, Xueguang. Rethinking Corporatist Bases of Stratification in Rural China: Observation and Reflection from Villages, a paper to be presented at Yale Conference on Creating Wealth and Property in Contemporary China, 2005

【注释】

(1)怀疑此前两处括号中作者的举例有误,抑或不同文化背景下,个体行为存有差别,原文如此。

(2)这是现代民法中的诚信原则,即“有约必受”的原则,这一原则的得以实践的基础在于,人们必须相信这个原则,便成了一个道德上的信条,最后只能追究到“人而无信,不知其可也。”这也是保守自由主义财产权理论的基础,“休谟明确指出了这些思想和自由的关系,以及一切人的最大自由要根据他所说的三条‘基本的自然法则’,即‘所有权的稳定、其转移需经同意以及信守承诺’,对每个人的自由进行平等的限制……休谟最早明确认识到,根据‘事后判断的公正,或对别人财产的尊重、诚实,或信守诺言,已经成为义务并成为支配人类行为的一种权威’,使自然的道德本能‘受到制约或限制’,才会使普遍的自由成为可能。”(哈耶克, 2000: 34～35)

(3)根据法律的规定,赡养诉讼案件,子女必须全部被列为共同被告,这是一程序上的安排,也意味深长。

(4)关于时间及其中涉及的初中、高中及大学的关系,与作者联系,时间上的错误为打印错误。而初、高中确为原诉状所写。被告年纪都五六十岁了,回顾的是二三十年前的事情,他们对此逻辑并不是十分清楚。为保持资料的原始状况,仅做一处修改(其余不变)。特此说明。

(5)如果比较法官判决的内容,侯每月获得的赡养费要高过这里的约定。但是,法官的判决却没有规定如何轮流提供非物质的扶养。