"Beyond Adversary Democracy should be read by everyone concerned with democratic theory and practice."—Carol Pateman, Politics
"Sociologists recurrently complain about how seldom it is that we produce books that combine serious theorizing about important issues of public policy with original and sensitive field research. Several rounds of enthusiastic applause, then, are due Jane Mansbridge . . . for having produced a dense and well written book whose subject is nothing less ambitious than the theory of democracy and its problems of equality, solidarity, and consensus. Beyond Adversary Democracy, however, is not simply a work of political theory; Mansbridge explores her abstract subject matter by close studies (using ethnographic, documentary, and questionnaire methods) of two small actual democracies operating at their most elemental American levels (1) a New England town meeting ("Selby," Vermont) and (2) an urban crisis center ("Helpline"), whose 41 employees shared a New Left-Counterculture belief in participatory democracy and consensual decision-making. [Mansbridge] is a force to contend with. It is in our common interest that she be widely read."—Bennett M. Berger, Contemporary Sociology
Jane J. Mansbridge is professor of political science at Northwestern University. She is also on the faculty of the university's Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.
评分
评分
评分
评分
我最近读了一本关于政治哲学和国际关系的书,书名有些拗口,但内容却发人深省。这本书探讨了在当今复杂多变的全球格局下,民主政体如何有效应对外部威胁与内部挑战,尤其是在面对非对称性对抗和颠覆性技术冲击时所展现出的韧性与局限。作者深入剖析了“敌人”这一概念在现代政治语境中的演变,从传统的国家间军事对抗,延伸到网络空间、信息战以及意识形态领域的较量。书中不乏对历史案例的精彩梳理,比如冷战时期的代理人战争如何塑造了当代的地缘政治版图,以及后冷战时代“新冷战”的某些特征。特别令人印象深刻的是,作者并没有简单地将民主与威权对立起来,而是着重分析了民主制度在自我修复、适应和演化方面的内在潜力。书中关于“共识困境”和“反应迟缓”的论述,精准地指出了民主决策过程在快速变化的环境中所面临的结构性障碍,同时也提出了许多富有创见的政策建议,旨在增强国家安全叙事的一致性和有效性,同时避免滑向过度动员和威权主义的泥潭。这本书的论证逻辑严密,史料扎实,对于理解当代国际政治的深层动力学非常有帮助,尤其适合那些对国际安全和政治理论感兴趣的读者。
评分这本书的行文结构非常精巧,它并非线性叙事,而是像一个不断收紧的螺旋,每深入一层,都能发现与前文观点的呼应与深化。我尤其欣赏作者在处理敏感议题时的克制与平衡感。例如,在讨论“软实力”与“硬实力”的界限时,作者没有简单地倾向于任何一方,而是展示了它们之间复杂的相互作用。书中引用了大量的国际法和国际关系理论流派的观点,但这些引用并非为了炫耀学识,而是作为支撑其核心论点的砖石,使得整个论述坚不可摧。其中对“认知战”概念的界定和分类,我觉得是全书的亮点之一,它超越了以往对宣传的传统理解,将其视为一种对人类决策机制的系统性攻击。我个人认为,这本书对于政策制定者来说,是一份绝佳的案头参考书,因为它提供了一种“系统视角”,帮助决策者跳出短期的政治周期,着眼于长远的战略稳定。对于普通读者而言,尽管专业术语较多,但只要耐心梳理,就能体会到其中蕴含的深刻洞察力,它强迫你去思考,我们所珍视的开放社会,在面对那些不珍视开放性的对手时,究竟该如何自处。
评分这本书给我的最大感受是,它提供了一种“后胜利”的审视视角。作者似乎在暗示,冷战的结束并没有带来持久的和平,而是催生了一种更加弥散、更加难以捉摸的冲突形态。我注意到书中对“混合战争”的描述极其生动,它不是传统意义上的闪电战或堑壕战,而是将经济胁迫、法律战、舆论操纵等工具无缝地编织在一起,旨在缓慢侵蚀对手的意志。书中对不同文化背景下的“忠诚”概念的对比分析,也极大地拓宽了我的视野。作者质疑了西方文化中那种基于个人主义的“忠诚”观,在面对集体主义驱动的对手时所展现的脆弱性。整本书充满了对人类政治本性的深刻洞察,它没有给出简单的解药,反而揭示了问题的复杂性和紧迫性。我读到最后,感觉自己像是经历了一场深入的智力冒险,走出书页时,世界的轮廓似乎变得更加清晰,但也更加令人敬畏。这本书真正做到的,是把我们从对过去冲突的怀旧中拉出来,强迫我们直面当前正在发生的、但我们尚未完全理解的权力游戏。
评分说实话,这本书的阅读体验是挑战与收获并存的。它不像市面上那些畅销书那样,用激动人心的故事或简单粗暴的口号来吸引人,而是扎扎实实地建立起一套复杂的理论框架来解析现实。我花了相当多的时间去理解作者如何将古典政治理论中的权力分配概念,嫁接到对现代国家间权力制衡的分析上。其中关于“战略模糊”的探讨尤其精彩,作者认为在某些特定情境下,清晰的界限反而会成为战略上的负担,而适度的模糊性反而能为外交政策留下回旋余地,迫使潜在的对手进行更加谨慎的评估。这种辩证的思考方式,让我对许多国际事件有了全新的视角。书中对技术进步如何重塑“敌我”边界的论述,也极具前瞻性。比如,当社会内部的异见和信息碎片化成为一种可以被外部势力利用的弱点时,传统的防御体系就显得捉襟见肘。作者的语言风格偏学术化,句式较长,需要读者保持高度的专注力,但一旦跟上节奏,那种豁然开朗的感觉是无可替代的。对于那些习惯了碎片化阅读的读者来说,这绝对是一次对心智耐力的考验,但收获的深度远超一般的通俗读物。
评分这本书最让我感到震撼的是它对“内在安全威胁”的深入挖掘。许多关于国家安全的讨论都聚焦于边界之外的军事力量,但这本书却将聚光灯对准了民主社会内部的裂痕和漏洞。作者以一种近乎解剖学的细致,剖析了信息生态系统的失衡如何侵蚀公民对制度的信任,以及这种信任的崩塌如何使得外部干预轻易得逞。书中提到了一个非常尖锐的观点:一个社会如果不能有效处理自身的社会不公和身份政治矛盾,那么它在面对外部压力时,其内部的张力就会被放大成致命的弱点。我特别喜欢作者在分析不同民主政体应对策略时的比较性视角,比如,他对比了西欧国家和北美国家在处理信息主权问题上的差异,并试图找出哪种模式在长期的战略竞争中更具可持续性。这本书的价值不仅在于批判,更在于它提供了一种构建“系统性免疫力”的思考路径,即如何通过制度改革和公民教育,使民主本身成为最坚固的防御。读完之后,我感觉自己看待新闻报道和社交媒体信息的方式都有了微妙的变化,更加警惕那些旨在制造分裂和混乱的叙事。
评分The writing as an ethnography is intricate and tortuous, with a good sense of balance between self-interested actors struggling for benefits and collective efforts in constructing the common good. But the theory is just crappy, with naive and superficial summary of constitutional democracy, and the ignorance of "scaling up" in modernization.
评分The writing as an ethnography is intricate and tortuous, with a good sense of balance between self-interested actors struggling for benefits and collective efforts in constructing the common good. But the theory is just crappy, with naive and superficial summary of constitutional democracy, and the ignorance of "scaling up" in modernization.
评分The writing as an ethnography is intricate and tortuous, with a good sense of balance between self-interested actors struggling for benefits and collective efforts in constructing the common good. But the theory is just crappy, with naive and superficial summary of constitutional democracy, and the ignorance of "scaling up" in modernization.
评分The writing as an ethnography is intricate and tortuous, with a good sense of balance between self-interested actors struggling for benefits and collective efforts in constructing the common good. But the theory is just crappy, with naive and superficial summary of constitutional democracy, and the ignorance of "scaling up" in modernization.
评分The writing as an ethnography is intricate and tortuous, with a good sense of balance between self-interested actors struggling for benefits and collective efforts in constructing the common good. But the theory is just crappy, with naive and superficial summary of constitutional democracy, and the ignorance of "scaling up" in modernization.
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有