摘 要

本文透過與主流國關理論比較的方式，介紹批判理論內部的其中一個學派：新葛蘭西學派的各種觀點，為了縮小研究範圍，因此比較的對象設定在以Waltz為首的新現實主義與Gilpin的霸權穩定理論，以及Keohane與Nye共同建立的新自由制度主義。並根據Strange針對主流國關研究所提出的三個批評，依次在本文中區分成三節，由下而上分別探討國家與社會的關係、霸權與體制以及後冷戰世界秩序。最後，本文將針對以上的比較結果做出規範性的討論，同時對國關學門未來的發展提出期許。本文的目的是為了介紹不同與主流國關理論觀察角度的學派，尤其是新葛蘭西學派重新思索啟蒙運動的意義，拒絕自然科學所採行的主客體二分的研究態度，轉而主張社會科學應該發展出一套適合自身學科的研究方法，並且利用歷史唯物論的研究方式為國際關係提供歷史情境的解釋。

大致來說，新葛蘭西學派的思想脈絡可以追溯至以下三位學者的思想：包括新馬克思主義者葛蘭西「文化霸權」的概念，強調霸權統治的非物質面向、辯證結構主義者普蘭查斯提出的「國家相對自主性」的概念以及修正工具馬克思主義所帶有的「經濟決定論」的特徵，關注反霸權社會運動的運作及功能，而不再認為利用武力奪取國家或是採行激進的革命路線才是推翻既有霸權的唯一手段。最後是社會學家博蘭尼「雙重運動」的觀念，他指出在前資本主義時期，市場本身只扮演著從屬的角色，全國性市場的出現是國家後天計畫的政策使然，以及強調自我調節市場本身的謬誤。結合以上三位學者各自的理論主張，新葛蘭西學派發展出一套不同於主流國關理論的歷史研究途徑，來解釋國際現象並試圖改變既有世界秩序的不公平。

總而言之，雖然主流國關理論在預測少數強國的行為上表現優異，但是仍留下了許多懸而未決的問題，同時國關學門內部也仍有極大的空間應該進行理論之間的對話，尤其是長期居於邊陲地位的左派思想更應該如此，因此如何在可預見的未來建立一個溝通良善的學術社群，對國關學門來說是首要的任務。

Abstract

This essay elaborates the international New Gramscian School, which is one branch of critical theory, through comparing with mainstream international relation theories, limited in Waltz’s structural realism, Gilpin’s theory of hegemonic stability and neoliberal institutionalism Keohane & Nye devised. Meanwhile, this essay is divided into three parts, from lower level of relation between state and society (relation of structure and agent), hegemony and international regime, to higher level of post-Cold War world order, according to the critique Susan Strange refers to the mainstream international studies. Finally, I will make a normative statement about the School and suggestion related to the development of IR discipline. The purpose of this essay is to introduce a new approach that adopts historical materialism and denies the dichotomy of subject and object. Further, it assumes the importance of social science to build up a research method suitable for itself but different with natural science, and reassesses Enlightment Project.

In brief, the context of the New Gramscian School could be derived from the following thinking of three scholars, including neo-Marxist Gramsci ’’cultural hegemony’’ which stresses non-material dimension of hegemony, Poulantzas ‘’relative autonomy of state’’ and ‘’dialectical structural analysis ’’, highlighting non-determinist characteristic of neoMarxism and putting emphases on the functions of anti-hegemonic social movements rather than seizing state machine by forces directly or radical revolutionary path, and Socialist Polanyi ‘’double movement’’, which tries to verify that market itself plays only subordinate role in pre-capitalism period and indicate the fallacy of the self-regulating market itself. With these perspectives above, the School develops a quite different historical approach to interpret international phenomenon and tend to transform the given unjust and unfair world order.

In sum, though mainstream IR theories are good at prediction of behaviors in few strong states, there are still a lot of questions unsolved and much space left for IR discipline to have a dialogue with competitive theories, especially the Left had been marginalized for a long time. Accordingly, it’s important and constructive to establish a communicative community in the foreseeable future.

目次
第一章 導論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的…………………………………………………15
第二節 研究方法與範圍………………………………………………….18
第三節 研究架構………………………………………………………….19
第四節 章節安排………………………………………………………….21
第五節 研究限制………………………………………………………….23
第二章 國家概念及結構—能動者關係 25
第一節 新現實主義………………………………………………………..27
第二節 新自由制度主義………………………………………………………35
第三節 新葛蘭西學派…………………………………………………………43
第三章 霸權與體制概念 59
第一節 主流國關理論對霸權與體制之研究及其批評……………………..60
第二節 新葛蘭西學派之霸權意義與體制研究……………………………..76
第三節 三個理論之比較……………………………………………………..84
第四章 後冷戰的世界秩序 93
第一節 新自由制度主義的後冷戰世界秩序與新自由主義福山的歷史終結..94
第二節 後冷戰時代下的新現實主義………………………………………..106
第三節 新葛蘭西學派對社會運動之研究觀點……………………………..116
第五章 結論 133
參考文獻 143

參考文獻


一、英文部分

Arrighi, Giovanni. 1993. ‘’The Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism’’ in Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ashley, Richard. 1995. ’’The Power of Anarchy: Theory, Sovereignty, and the Domestication of Global Life ’’ in James Der Derian (ed) International Theory: Critical Investigation, Washington Square: New York University Press.

Bank, Michael (ed.). 1984. ’’The Evolution of International Relations Theory’’ in Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations.. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.

Biersteker, Thomas. 1989. ’’Critical Reflections on Post-Positivism in International Relations’’. International Studies Quarterly 33 pp263-267

Brown, Chris. 1997. Understanding International Relations. Hampshire: Macmillan Press.

Cox, Robert. 1996. ’’Social Forces, States, and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory’’ in Approaches to World Order, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, Robert. 1996. ‘’Toward a Posthegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun’’ in Approaches to World Order UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, Robert. 1996. ‘’Realism, Positivism and Historicism’’ in Approaches to World Order UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, Robert. 1996. ‘’Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations’’ in Approaches to World Order UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, Robert. 2000. ‘’The Way Ahead: Toward a New Ontology of World Order’’ in Critical Theory and World Politics. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Devetak, Richard. 2000. ’’ The Project of Modernity and International Relations Theory’’ in International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science vol4. New York : Routledge.

Devetak, Richard. 2001. ’’Critical Theory’’ in Theories of International Relations, pp145-178. et al. Andrew Linklater and Scott Burchill. London: MACMILLAN.

Dunne, Tin. 2001. ‘’Liberalism’’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations eds Baylis and Steve Smith New York: Oxford University Press.

Gale, Fred. 1998. ‘’Cave′Cave! Hic dragones': a neo-Gramscian Deconstruction and Reconstruction of International Regime Theory’’ in Review of Political Economy5:2, Summer, pp

Germain, Randall and Kenny, Michael. 1998. ’’Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians’’, Review of International Studies 24: pp3-21.

Gill, Stephen. 1993. ’Epistemology, Ontology and the ‘Italian School’’’ in Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, New York: Columbia University Press.

Gill, Stephen. 1993. ‘’’Gramsci and Global Politics: Towards a Post-Hegemonic Research Agenda’ in Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations New York: Columbia University Press.

Grieco, Joseph. 1993. ‘’Understanding the Problem of International Cooperation: the Limits of Neoliberal Institutionalism and the Future of Realist Theory’’ in Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate ed David A. Baldwin, NY: Columbia University Press.

Guzzini, Stefano. 1997. ‘’Robert Gilpin: The Realist Quest for the Dynamics of Power’’ in The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? ,eds Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wælver, NY: Routledge.

Halliday, Fred. 1995. ‘’The End of Cold War and International Relations: Some Analytic and Theoretical Conclusions’’ in International Relations Theory Today ed Ken Booth and Steve Smith, UK Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hobson, John. 2000. The State and International Relations (UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, Richard. 2001. ’’Introduction: Locating Critical International Relations Theory’’ in Critical Theory and World Politics Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publisher Inc

Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Keohane, Robert. 1993. ‘’Institutional Theory and the Realist Challenge After the Cold War’’ in Neorealism and Neoliberalism: the Contemporary Debate ed David Baldwin, NY: Columbia University Press.

Keohane, Robert. 1995. ‘’International Institutions: Two Approaches’’ in International Theory: Critical Investigations ed James Der Derian, Washington Square: New York University Press.

Keohane, Robert. 1990.‘’International Liberalism Reconsidered’’ in The Economic Limits to Modern Politics. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lamy, Steve. 2001.’’Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism’’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. NY: Oxford University Press.

Lapid, Yosef. 1989. ’’The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’’, International Studies Quarterly 33 pp235-254.

Linklater, Andrew. 1996. ’’The Achivement of Critical Theory’’ in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond eds. Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Linklater, Andrew and Burchill, Scott. 1996. Theories of International Relations. London: MACMILLAN.

Linklater, Andrew. 2000. ‘’The Question of the Next Stage in International relations Theory’’ in International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science vol4 New York : Routledge.

Milner, Helen. 1993. ’The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique’’ in Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. NY: Columbia University Press.

Mouritzen, Hans. 1997. ‘’Kenneth Waltz: A Critical Rationalist Between International Politics and Foreign Policy’’, in The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? eds Iver B Neumann and Ole Wælver, NY: Routledge.

Murphy, Craig (ed.). 2002. ‘’Conclusion: Pinpointing the Significance of Women’s Empowerment, Recognizing Political Opportunities, Anticipating Transnational Coalitions’’ in Egalitarian Politics in the Age of Globalization New York: Palgrave.

Murphy, Craig. 2002. ’’Introduction: Globalization and the Double-Movement Hypothesis’’ in Egalitarian Politics in the Age of Globalization ed Craig Murphy New York: Palgrave,

Robinson, William. 2002. ‘’Latin American in the Age of Inequality: Confronting the New ‘Utopia’’’ in Egalitarian Politics in the Age of Globalization ed Craig Murphy New York: Palgrave,

Smith, Steve. 1995. ’’The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory’’ in International Relations theory Today,. eds Ken Booth and Steve Smith. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Smith, Steve. 2001. ’’Reflectivist and Constructivist Approaches to International Theory’’ in Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, eds. John Baylis and Steve Smith. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Strange, Susan. 1982. ‘’Cave! Hic dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis’’ in International Organization 36:2, Spring,, pp

Strange, Susan. 1991. ’’An Eclectic Approach’’ in The New International Political Economy, eds Craig N. Murphy and Roger Tooze. Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Strange, Susan. 1995. ’’Political Economy and International Relations’’ in International Relations Theory Today, eds Ken Booth and Steve Smith. UK: Cambridge: Polity Press.

Waltz, Kenneth. 1986. ‘’Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power’’ in Neorealism and Its Critics (NY: Columbia University Press.

Waltz, Kenneth. 2000. ’’Structural Realism After Cold War’’ International Security, vol.25, pp

Wendt, Alexander. 1995. ’’Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics’’ in International Theory: Critical Investigation, ed James Der Derian. Washington Square: New York University Press.

Trilateral Commission. http://www.trilateral.org/



二、中文部分
Beck, Ulrich。孫治本譯。1999。全球化危機。台北：台灣商務出版。

Carnoy, Martin。杜麗燕、李少軍譯。1995。國家與政治理論。台北：桂冠圖書。

Fukuyama, Francis。李永熾譯。1993。歷史之終結與最後一人。台北：時報文化。

Gilpin, Robert。楊光宇譯。1994。國際關係的政治經濟分析。台北：桂冠圖書。

Guzzini, Stefano。鄭又平、黃烈修譯。2000。國際關係與國際政治經濟學。台北：韋伯文化。

Polanyi, Karl。黃樹民、石佳音、廖立文譯。1999。鉅變：當代政治、經濟的起源。台北：新橋譯叢。

Wendt, Alexander。2001。國際政治中的三種無政府文化。美歐季刊 ，142期，頁 。

大前研一。1996。民族國家的終結 。台北：立緒文化事業公司。

洪鐮德、黃德怡，1994。葛蘭西國家觀的評析。中山社會科學報，8卷2期，頁。

鄭端耀，2001，『國際關係「社會建構主義」評析』。 美歐季刊 ，142期，頁。