新自由主義與新道德主義 = Neoliberalism and New Moralism

新自由主義在本文中被當作這兩三百年由西方民族國家所主導的資本主義全球化 的最晚近階段之方案，與西方民族國家曾實施之禁運、圍堵、貿易關稅壁壘屬於同類的擴張-支配邏輯。這一邏輯推進的效果不只在經濟面向，而且在政治、文化、法律、農業、技術、生態等方面，可以說其實是西方文明的更全面的全球現代化，其企圖或前提也許是歷史的終結，但是首先卻引向了文明的衝突。文明衝突實際上聚攏了資本主義的諸多矛盾，以及主權國家之間、各民族或地方文化之間、各種身分之間、個人想望與現實之間等各種矛盾的多重決定。但是文明衝突之所以能凝聚各種矛盾而成為症候性的表述，仍是因為新自由主義的全球現代性產生同質性的效果，所謂剷平世界的力量，也就是朝向單一的文明現代性。對這個單一的 (主要是西方個人自由主義的) 文明現代性的批評無法在本文中展開；然而，這篇文章認為在抵抗新自由主義全球化方面，多樣現代性的提法雖然不是充分的，但卻是不可或缺的，並且在這個多樣現代性的冠銜下，聚攏對於國際政治、經濟、文化的不平等秩序之抵抗，指向了非西方模式的經濟、政治、文化的可能，由此開展多樣現代性之間的競逐，這將是我們這個時代最主要的局勢發展。以上是這篇文章前半部份的背景說明，本文第二部份則是注意新自由主義在文化與價值方面產生的政治效果與治理方式，我將之稱為「新道德主義」，它的起初環節是新自由主義内涵的普世進步主義，普世進步主義就是說:進步不是相對於特定歷史社會、一種倡議的進步與否不是在具體脈絡中被評價，進步體現了普世價值故而是内在地自我証成；性別平等、動物保護、憲政民主、同性婚姻、環境保護、兒童保護等等普世進步價值乃是西方文明現代所揭橥的人類永恆理想，在任何時空都適用。然而上述這種道德進步主義在爭取成為主流的實踐上，卻吸納了許多道德保守派的面向，後者也因此採用了許多進步主義修辭而同樣地佔據了主流空間，由此，由道德進步主義與道德保守派共治或輪流作莊的情況出現了，我將之稱為「新道德主義」- 雖然我主要描述的是台灣情況，但是或許這是個觀察冷戰以後世界的一個參考座標。 In this article, neoliberalism refers to the project marking the latest stage of the globalization of capitalism, a process that has been directed during the past two to three hundred years by western nation-states. Neoliberalism shares the same logic of expansion-dominance as the erstwhile strategy of western nation-states in setting up trade and customs barriers, embargo or encirclement. The effects of the imposition of this logic are seen not only in the economy, but also in politics, culture, law, agriculture, technology and ecology. It may be possible to regard neoliberalism as a more comprehensive way of global modernization by western civilization. Its attempt or premise might have been the end of history, but its first fruit was the conflict of civilizations – a conflict that saw the condensation of the many contradictions of capitalism, and the overdetermination of the contradictions between sovereign states, nations, regional cultures, identities, personal aspirations and realities. Nevertheless, the reason why civilizational conflict has been able to condense the various contradictions and emerge as their symptomatic expression would be due to the homogenising effect of neoliberalism on global modernity – a force that flattens the world, or in other words, a force that creates a singular civilizational modernity. It would be impossible to analyze within the space of this article this singular civilizational modernity. Yet, this article argues that in resisting the globalization of neoliberalism, the notion of diverse modernities, though insufficient, is indispensable. Under the heading of diverse-modernity, we find a clustering of resistances against the unequal order of international politics, economics and cultures. They point to the possibilities of non-western economic, political and cultural models of modernity. Thus began the contending between the diverse modernities. This serves to explain the background to the first half of the article; its second half deals with the political effect and the mode of governance of neoliberalism in the field of culture and values. I call this neo-Moralism , whose initial moment consisted of the universal progressivism that makes up neoliberalism. Universal progressivism meant that progressiveness is not seen as relative to a specific and historical societal condition; that the progressiveness of a cause is not measured against a specific context, but the embodiment of a universal value. Thus it is self-justified and intrinsically good - Gender equality, animal protection, constitutional democracy, same-sex marriage, environmental protection and the protection of minors – such universal values are the eternal ideals of humanity as demonstrated by modern western civilization, applicable in any time and space. And yet, in its struggle to become mainstream practice, moral progressivism has absorbed many aspects of moral conservatism, whilst the latter has also occupied the mainstream by appropriating many elements of progressive rhetoric and ideas. Thus emerged the situation where moral progressivism and moral conservatism alternate in dominance or govern jointly – and this scenario is what I refer to as neo-Moralism . Although my main object of description is the situation in Taiwan, this might be a point of reference in our observation of the world after the Cold War