周恺 董丹梨 潘兰英

Zhou Kai, Dong Danli, Pan Lanying

关键词：社会公正；城乡规划；正义城市；城市权；空间正义

Keywords：Social Justice; Urban Planning; Just City; Right to the City; Spatial Justice

摘要：

“社会公正”问题进入我国城市规划学者视野后，在多种现实问题的折射下，已经成为城市话题讨论中的热点。事实上，对“公平”和“正义”的哲学思辨贯穿了中西方社会、经济和政治理论发展的整个历程，积累了厚重且影响深远的思想遗产。本文追溯了“公正”理论发展的三个思想源头：（新）自由主义、社群主义和（新）马克思主义，并从意识形态根源出发，梳理学者、立场和观点的视角差别和承继关系。一方面，自由主义者基于“道德个人主义”和“底线福利保障”所倡导的分配正义观，成为被全球化世界体系（包括中国）逐渐接受的“普世价值”；另一方面，研究者也试图将社会公正探讨从“解放个体自由”转向“发掘集体生活中的道德标准”。植根于传统家国伦理的社群主义思想在不断提醒个人主义者，不应脱离个体在群体中的“社群责任”“集体义务”“归属感”和“荣辱感”来谈公正价值观。“差异政治”学说进一步发掘出，社会公正还涉及由于群体间的“主导”和“压迫”权力关系构成的不公平社会制度。在以上“求同、存异”的思想倡导下，共同构建一个多元、包容、和谐的城市社会成为都市人（特别是年轻一代）所推崇的理想城市图景。此外，（新）马克思主义者将社会不公正视为资本主义社会结构性矛盾的产物，“城市权”成为其分析当前城市社会中资本“积累”“循环”“剥削”和“危机”的核心概念；同时，“城市权”也成为新左派挑战资本制度的旗帜，激发了一系列社会抗争事件。通过以上梳理，本文希望能为澄清我国城乡规划价值观立场，重塑行业道德，提升规划师职业道德修养奠定讨论的基础。

Abstract：

The concept of “social justice” has entered the horizon of Chinese planning academics, and became a hotspot in the discussion of urban affairs, while constantly stimulated by the emerging social conflicts. In fact, the philosophical speculations of justice” and “equity” were nurtured in the whole course of socioeconomic and political theory in Eastern and Western Worlds, leaving rich ideological legacies. Therefore, this paper traces the roots of the social justice discourse back to three major ideological sources: (neo)Liberalism, Communitarianism and (neo)Marxism. It summarizes major social justice ideas in the Western World since the Enlightenment, hence to contextualize thoughts, to distinguish viewpoints, and to uncover origins and successions between theories and theorists. On the one hand, a “distributive justice” that derived from the “moral individualism” and “bottom-line welfare system” advocated by neoliberal scholars has become a “universal value” gradually accepted by the globalized world system (China included). On the other hand, some theories kept trying to redirect the dialogue on social justice from “liberalizing individual freedom” to “establishing the moral standards in collectively living”. The Communitarianism, which rooted in traditional patriostism and the ethics of belief, constantly reminds the individualists that the discussion of social justice should not ignore one’s “communal encumbrance”, “collective responsibilities”, “sense of belonging” and “pride and shame” as a community member. While the theory of “politics of difference”reveals that urban social justice issue involves the “dominative” or “oppressive” power relations between social groups which defined the injustice distribution in the first place. Therefore, hoping for “creating urban commons” and “celebrating city diversification”, a heterogeneous, inclusive and cohesive urban society became the shared vision of a metropolitan living, especially among young generations. From the third source, (neo)Marxists see social injustice as a result of the structural conflicts within the capitalist system. They are using the concept of “the right to the city” as the core analystical tool to explain the “accumulation”, “circulation”, “exploitation”, and “crisis” of capital in the modern urbanization process. The “right to the city” is also serving as the assembly banner for the “new left” in fighting against capitalism in the cities. By reframing the historical and theoretical perspectives on the social justice discourse, this paper is expected to elicit further discussions in regard to the value system, moral standing-point, and professional ethics of urban planners in China.

周恺，湖南大学建筑学院城乡规划系，副教授。zhoukai_nju@hotmail.com

董丹梨，湖南大学建筑学院，硕士研究生。1975667029@qq.com

潘兰英，长沙市规划勘测设计研究院，规划师。810925441@qq.com

• [1] BENTHAM J. Tracts on poor laws and pauper management[M]. BOWRING J, ed. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. New York: Russell & Russell, 1797: 369-439.

  [2] MILL J S. On liberty[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1859.

  [3] FRIEDMAN M. Capitalism and freedom[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

  [4] HAYEK F A. The Constitution of liberty[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.

  [5] HAYEK F A. The road to serfdom[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944.

  [6] NOZICK R. Anarchy, state, and utopia[M]. New York: Basic Books, 1974.

  [7] RAWLS J. A theory of justice[M]. Harvard University Press, 1971.

  [8] SANDEL M J. Justice, what’s the right thing to do?[M]. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 2009.

  [9] KANT I. Critique of practical reason[M]. Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts, 1788.

  [10] ARISTOTLE. The politics[M]. BARKER E, ed & trans. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.

  [11] MACINTYRE A. After virtue[M]. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.

  [12] YOUNG I M. Justice and the politics of difference[M]. Princeton University Press, 1990.

  [13] JACOBS J. The death and life of great American cities[M]. New York: Random House, 1961.

  [14] HARVEY D. Social justice, postmodernism and the city[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1992, 16(4): 588-601.

  [15] LEFEBVRE H. Writings on cities[M]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Blackwell, 1996.

  [16] HARVEY D. The right to the city[J]. New Left Review, 2008, 53: 23-40.

  [17] HARVEY D. Rebel cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution[M]. London: Verso, 2012.

  [18] HARVEY D. Social justice and the city[M]. Basil Blackwell, 1973.

  [19] SOJA E W. The city and spatial justice[J/OL]. Justice Spatiale | Spatial Justice, 2009(1): 1-5. [2018-01-16]. http://www.jssj.org/article/la-ville-et-lajustice-spatiale/.

  [20] FAINSTEIN S S. The just city[J]. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 2014, 18(1): 1-18.

  [21] MARCUSE P. From critical urban theory to the right to the city[J]. City, 2009, 13(2/3): 186-197.

  [22] MARCUSE P. Reading the right to the city-part two: organizational realities[J]. City, 2014, 18(2): 101-103.

  [23] MAYER M. The‘ right to the city’ in the context of shifting mottos of urban social movements[J]. City, 2009, 13(2/3): 362-374.

  [24] Habitat International Coalition. World charter to the right to the city[S/OL]. (2005-06-27)[2018-04-24]. http://hic-gs.org/document.php?pid=2422.

  [25] United Nation. Habitat III: the new urban agenda[S/OL]. 2017. [2018-04-24].http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda.

  [26] 周俭, 钟晓华. 城市规划中的社会公正议题：社会与空间视角下的若干规划思考[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2016(5): 9-12.

  [27] 周俭. 城乡规划要强化社会公正的目标[J]. 城市规划, 2016, 40(2): 94-95.

  [28] 唐子来 , 张庭伟 , 张京祥 , 等 .“ 包容性发展与城市规划变革”学术笔谈会[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2016(1): 1-8.

  [29] 唐子来, 顾姝. 再议上海市中心城区公共绿地分布的社会绩效评价：从社会公平到社会正义[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2016(1): 15-21.

  [30] 石楠, 韩柯子. 包容性语境下的规划价值重塑及学科转型[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2016(1): 9-14.

  [31] 曹现强, 张福磊. 空间正义：形成、内涵及意义[J]. 城市发展研究, 2011, 18(4): 1-5.

  [32] 陈锋. 在自由与平等之间：社会公正理论与转型中国城市规划公正框架的构建[J]. 城市规划, 2009, 33(1): 9-16.

  [33] 唐绍均. 论我国城市规划审批决策体制的正义与效率[J]. 城市规划, 2008, 32(2): 50-54.

  [34] 刘佳燕. 规划公正：社会学视角下的城市规划[J]. 规划师, 2008, 24(9): 5-9.

  [35] 郭建, 孙惠莲. 公众参与城市规划的伦理意蕴[J]. 城市规划, 2007, 31(7): 56-61.

  [36] 陈鹏. 自由主义与转型社会之规划公正[J]. 城市规划, 2005, 29(8): 19-28.

  
  

• 收起