支配的异质性 [The Heterogeneity of Domination]

Abstract

Chinese Abstract: 菲利普·佩蒂特“自由即无支配”的共和主义自由观预设了“支配”的特定性质。在他给出的三个条件中，各种形式的支配尽管强度与广度有别，其性质却完全相同。支配的这种“同质性”令佩蒂特得以将所有的支配案例等同于奴隶制，从而论证“支配”相对于“干预”的优先性。

但对比佩蒂特的支配定义与罗马法的支配定义，即可看出这种同质性假设是成问题的。以从罗马法中提炼出的“进入条件”与“退出条件”为基础，我们可以区分出两类相当异质的支配：作为选项的支配，与作为困境的支配。支配的这种异质性，动摇了“支配总是优先于干预”这一共和主义主张的有效性。

English Abstract: Philip Pettit’s republican conception of freedom as non-domination relies on an assumption about the nature of domination. All forms of domination defined in his three clauses are supposed to have the same nature, despite their variation in intensity and extent. The homogeneity of domination allows Pettit to equate all cases of domination with slavery, arguing for the priority of domination as such to interference.

The homogeneity assumption is falsified, however, by contrasting Pettit’s definition of domination with its counterpart in the Roman law. Based on the entry condition and the exit condition explicated from the Roman law, we can distinguish between two, rather heterogeneous sorts of domination: domination as option, and domination as predicament. This heterogeneity of domination leads us to reconsider the validity of the republican claim that domination should always take precedence over interference.