在國際關係的研究領域中，不論是國家中心論或是以體系為主的體系理論，都以國家為研究的客體。伴隨著全球化浪潮，「全球治理」概念的出現，表明以國家為主的國際政治體系已無法解決國際環境的複雜變化，須藉助許多跨國性次級團體來共同治理。有鑑於此，新現實主義、新自由主義、 與建構主義中以國家為給定對象的國際關係主流理論，遇到解釋上的局限， 需要建構一套新的本體論與知識論，俾有效解釋在國際政治中逐漸呈現的多元行為體治理現象。本文認為國際關係理論面臨三個問題的挑戰:一、如何解釋國際政治多元行為體的現象?二、如何解釋行為體的認同變化與行動選擇?三、如何解釋人、多元行為體與國際社會三者相互建構的關係?本文援引當代社會理論，將「主題」與「個人」視為來回往返的主客體，以「主題」取代「國家」成為主體，並以「權力載體」的概念取代行為體，嘗試對上述問題做出合理的系統性解釋。本文認為，一旦主題成為社會共識，個人會依所處的社會位置與知識理念，選擇適當的「權力載體」，創造出符合系統目標的論述，而在論述的競合中，社會的建構於焉發生。
Theories of international relations(IR), whether through state-centric or systemic approach, put states as centers of research objectives. With trending globalization, the advent of the global governance concepts manifests that a state-focused international political system without transnational sub-political groups has failed to respond to complex changes in the international environment. Accordingly, this challenges neo-realism, neo- liberalism, and constructivism, which focus on the state-centric approach and experience explanatory constraints. In order to interpret the multiple actors’ phenomenon in present international politics, a set of new ontology and epistemology in the study of IR should be introduced. The aforementioned theories exhibit some explanatory shortcomings with regards to(1) multiple actors’ phenomenon in present international politics;(2)actor’s identity shifting and its alternatives of action;(3)the co-constructive relationships among individuals, multiple actors, and the international society.
To overcome these shortcomings, this article constructs a synthesis on the basis of the current IR and modern sociological theories. In doing so, this article first presents the centrality of “theme” to challenge IR’s main focus on “states” as well as their ontological claims and then employs the “power platform” to replace actors. This paper argues that once an issue becomes a theme with strong social consensus, individuals may choose an associating power platform according to their statuses and perceptions to create discourses corresponding to the inherent social system. Social construction may happen in the process of cooperation and competition of discourses.
本體論為任何研究之始，能動者 / 結構爭論為以 Waltz 為首之結構現實主義與 Wendt 為代表之建構主義在本體論層次的重要歧異點之一，為此，兩派學者自 1980 年代末黨論戰迄今。儘管本體論的問題具有政治性，不見得有終極與明確的答案，但籍由本體論的討論可以讓吾人更能瞭解兩派理論在深層假設的異同。本文在敘明能動者/結構爭論在理論發展上的重要性後，進行爭論中相關重要概念——如能動者、能動性、結構等——的闡述，除追蹤這些概念在社會學上的根源..
All research begins with ontology. The agent/structure debate represents one of the most profound discrepancies and the least conclusive contests in this regard between Structural Realism and Constructivism since the late 1980s. Though politics is the terrain of competing ontology；definite and clear-cut answers are hardly attainable, a serious discussion on ontological issues can lead us to penetrate the assumptions deeply embedded in both theories. This article first examines theoretical significances in the agent/structure debate and ..
Alexander Wendt 運用量子意識理論作為其建構主義的知識論主張，嘗試證明科學實在論的觀點，也就是可以能科學地研究與證明理念與意識在形成集體認同及行動的作用。Wendt 的量子意識理論肇因於建構主義內部的知識論爭論，他科學實在論的知識論立場引發了不同的批評，遂而提出量子意識理論作為回應，企圖告訴讀者不同的思考世界方式。 本文將聚焦於 Wendt 所提出的量子意識理論(假設)對於建構主義理論 (甚至整個國際關係理論)的意涵，以及..
Alexander Wendt tries to use quantum consciousness theory or hypothesis (QCT) as an epistemological position for his constructivism to defend the scientific realism that it can scientifically research and prove the effects of ideas and consciousness on collective identity formation. Wendt’s QCT resulted from the epistemological debates within constructivism, his scientific realism has generated various critics, he initiated QCT to response these critiques and tried to tell readers how to think the world differently. ..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.