布鲁斯·阿克曼：《阿克曼文集》序言

学科: 法律
来源: (《阿克曼文集》)
关键词: 布鲁斯·阿克曼，宪法学，革命，田雷
摘要: 美国当代宪法学家与政治理论家，先后毕业于哈佛大学和耶鲁法学院，曾任教于宾夕法尼亚大学法学院、耶鲁法学院和哥伦比亚大学法学院，自1987年始担任耶鲁大学斯特林法学与政治学讲座教授。阿克曼教授在政治理论、美国宪政与比较宪法领域内均有卓越的原创学术贡献。

启蒙革命的历史起始于美国，接着又到达法国，在而后的两个世纪内席卷了整个世界--中国、印度和南非，都代表着在现代时期在此共同主题下晚近的重要变奏。所有这些事件都分享着两个特征。第一，它们都是*革命*（revolutions）--动员起来的群众致力于打破旧秩序，并且以人民的名义去建设一个新的、更好的政体。第二，它们都是*启蒙*（*enlightenment*）革命--它们并没有将自己的权威建基于人格崇拜，如希特勒的德国，或者神圣权威，如阿亚图拉的伊朗，其基础在于人类创造一个更为自由和公正的体制的理性力量。而这正是启蒙主义的不朽希望。

1848年以降，这一世界革命的运动分成为两个大阵营--一边是马克思主义者的；另一边是自由民主主义者的。两者都是启蒙主义的孩子--他们都反对建立在传统、宗教或殖民主义之上的政府；他们都致力于动员起群众运动，以实现根本性的变革；而有些时候，他们也都成功地推翻了旧体制，启动起一种革命性的政府。

诚然，马克思主义和自由主义在关键问题上存在分歧（而分歧的程度取决于作为特定革命之理论基础的马克思主义或自由主义的版本）。但是，分歧不应当遮蔽住他们共同的启蒙理想--普罗大众经由动员起来的理性行动，即可建设一个更加美好的世界。

当我们迈入二十一世纪之时，共同的启蒙理想可以让不同的启蒙传统进行相互间的学习。最重要的是，当华盛顿、毛泽东、甘地或曼德拉史诗般地完成新政体的创设时，革命的故事并未因此终结。维持革命之理念的斗争要延续数十载，乃至数个世纪--在这一时间进程内展示出许多成功与失败。这种业已丰富且仍在积累的历史经验应当激发出一种具有世界历史意义的对话，在这场对话中，来自不同国家的研究者努力比较每一民族之革命经验的共同和差异之处。

美国宪法史在这一场对话内是一种重要资源。本文集所收录著作即将展示，现代美国政府并不是在1787年的那个"神奇时刻"一蹴而就的，其时，一小组胜利的革命者齐聚费城，以我们人民的名义提议了一部新宪法。恰恰相反，它是两个世纪以来革命斗争的产物--在此过程中，每一代人都见证了新群众运动的努力，它们改造了十八世纪的建国遗产。有时候，这些努力从根本上改变了美国政府的目标和方法；有时候，努力只能产生更为有限的调整。但是没有这些不间断的革命性改革的努力，美国的十八世纪宪法早就将为一系列新宪法所替代--而这正是在法国与世界许多地区发生的故事。

美国成功的关键在于"人性尺度上的革命"（revolution on a human scale）的实践。我们可以通过两组对比来阐释这一概念。首先比较它和"完全革命"（total revolution），完全革命的运动及其领导人追求对此前体制的*所有*要素的一种*完全*否定。而这从来都不是美国的目标。美国在十八世纪的原初革命者，虽然否定了英国的君主制和阶级体制，但保留了大部分的普通法传统。同样，美国的后世革命者，虽然他们成功地在十九世纪的重建时期推翻了奴隶制，在二十世纪前半叶的新政时期否定了自由放任的资本主义，并且随后在民权运动中摧毁了州所维持的种族宰制体制，但他们都保留了此前宪法传统中的许多元素。在每一次此类彻底变革中，革命领袖都将许多传统元素编织进入他们的新美国政府系统。

其次是比较它与"常规政治"（normal politics），在常规政治的过程中，政客和官僚们只不过是在做间隙性的改革，而不去追问根本性的原则。这完全不同于美国在过去两个世纪内的伟大革命：动员起来的群众运动以我们人民的名义要求根本性的变革。区别于常规政治的小修小补，这些运动成功地赢得了大规模的"革命性改革"（revolutionary reforms）--但是却没有否决此前时代的所有宪法成就。正是这一点使得"人性尺度上的革命"在一方面区别于"常规政治"，另一方面则区别于"完全革命"。

人性尺度上的革命，达成如此成就非常困难。如要弹压群众动员，继续走在"常规政治"的道路上，这非常"容易"。与此同时，激化为一场"完全革命"，即便它可能导致蒙受严酷的暴力行为，这也总是有诱惑力的。但是美国历史证明，在这两个极端之间还存在着一种第三条道路。我的研究大部分都旨在详细解释，美国人是如何反复实践这一在人性尺度上进行革命的卓越技艺的。

一个关键概念是"宪法时刻"（constitutional moment）--它要持续十多年，而非数日或数月。宪法时刻的标志是不断升级的群众动员，要求根本性的变革。宪法时刻起始于民众运动的领导人控制了美国政府的某一个主要机构之时--通常是总统，但有时候也可能是国会或联邦最高法院。一场激烈的政治对话就因此而起，对话的一方是由革命改革者所控制的政府分支，另一方则是仍由宪法保守派继续掌控的分支。这一对抗引导改革者和保守者各自动员起本方的支持者，以期在下一次的选举中赢得压倒对手的胜利。有时候，保守派在选举斗争中取得了胜利，由此就终结了那一时代的革命政治。但还有些时候，革命性的政党得到选民的连续支持，在重返华盛顿时，他们就在美国政府的更多分支内掌控着更大的权力。当革命政党赢得了一系列的选战，最终主导了政府的全部主要分支--众议院、参议院、总统和最高法院，一次宪法时刻即告终结。在此情形后会出现一个长的时段，美国宪法的更多的传统元素就将被改造，使其得以容纳新的革命性改革。

中国读者还应因另外的原因而关注美国的宪政经验。首要的是，美国革命代表着现代的第一场成功的反帝革命。虽然美国在十八世纪与英帝国的决裂在很多方面不同于中国在二十世纪反抗西方宰制和羞辱的卓绝斗争，但我鼓励本文集的读者们可以去寻找那些更为隐蔽的同构。其次，美国的经验包含着一种持续不断的努力，如何实现在华盛顿所制定的全国性政策和由州政府所确立的地方紧要议程之间的协调。在"中枢"和"边缘"之间的不同关系，曾在实际中启发着美国宪政在过去两个世纪内的实践，但诸如"联邦制"之类的标签无法替代有关于此的深层历史理解。

         对本文集的中文读者来说，他们当然会想到更多的引人入胜的同构和分歧。我希望他们勤于思考并且精于著述。

***

我要感谢田雷教授为组织这一翻译工程所付出的努力。本文集可以证明，他深刻理解了那些驱使我进行宪法学研究的智识雄心。多年来的交往使得我们两人有可能共同工作，为中国读者提供了这套丛书。

（田雷译）

Preface to the Collected Works of Bruce Ackerman

Bruce Ackerman

The history of Enlightenment Revolution begins in America, moves next to
France, and then sweeps the world over the next two centuries - China,
India, South Africa representing important recent variations on common
themes during the modern era. All of these events share two features.
First, they are *revolutions* -- mobilized mass efforts to repudiate the
old order and to build a new and better regime in the name of the People.
Second, they are *enlightenment *revolutions - they do not base their
authority on the cult of personality, as in Hitler's Germany, or on divine
authority, as in the Ayatollah's Iran, but on the power of human reason to
create a more free and just system. This is the undying hope of the
Enlightenment.

           Since 1848, this world-revolutionary movement has divided into
two great camps - Marxists on the one hand; liberal democrats, on the
other. Both are children of the Enlightenment - each opposes governments
based on tradition, or religion, or colonialism; each seeks to mobilize a
mass movement for fundamental change; and each has sometimes succeeded in
repudiating the old regime and installing a revolutionary government.

Of course, Marxism and liberalism differ on key points (though the degree
of difference depends on the versions of Marxism or liberalism motivating
particular revolutions). But these differences should not conceal their
similar Enlightenment aspiration - that men and women, through the
mobilized use of reason, can build a better world.

           This point makes it possible for different Enlightenment
traditions to learn from one another as we move ahead into the twenty-first
century. Most importantly, the revolutionary story does not end with the
heroic founding of the new regime by a Washington or a Mao, a Gandhi or a
Mandela. The struggle to sustain the revolution's ideals continues for
decades and centuries - with many successes and failures displayed over
the course of time. This immense and accumulating body of historical
experience should provoke a world-historical conversation, in which
students in different countries seek to compare the similarities and
differences in each nation's revolutionary experience.

           American constitutional history is an important resource in this
conversation. As demonstrated in these collected writings, modern American
government is not the product of a single "magic moment" in 1787, when a
small band of victorious revolutionaries assembled in Philadelphia to
propose a new Constitution in the name of We the People. To the contrary,
it is the product of two centuries of revolutionary struggle - in which
each generation has witnessed the efforts of new mass movements to
transform the Founding legacy of the eighteenth century. Sometimes, these
efforts have led to sweeping changes in the aims and methods of American
government; sometimes, they have led to more modest adaptations. But
without these on-going efforts at revolutionary reform, America's
eighteenth century constitution would have long ago been replaced by a
series of new constitutions - as happened in France and in many other
places.

           The key to America's success is the practice of "revolution on a
human scale." This concept is best illuminated through two contrasts. The
first contrast is with efforts at "total revolution," in which the
revolutionary movement and its leaders aim for nothing less than a
*total*repudiation of
*all* elements of the preceding regime. This has never been the American
goal. The original American revolutionaries of the eighteenth century
retained much of the common law tradition while rejecting the British
monarchy and the British class system. Similarly, latter day American
revolutionaries retained many elements of their previous constitutional
tradition while they successfully repudiated slavery during the
Reconstruction period of the nineteenth century, rejected laissez faire
capitalism during the New Deal and, later in the twentieth century,
destroyed state-sponsored racial subordination during the Civil Rights
Revolution. Nevertheless, during each of these sweeping changes, the
revolutionary leaders wove many traditional elements into their new systems
of American government.

The second contrast is with "normal politics," during which politicians and
bureaucrats merely make interstitial changes without questioning
fundamental principles. This is very different from America's great
revolutions of the past two centuries, in which mass popular movements
demanded fundamental changes in the name of We the People. In contrast the
small changes of normal politics, these movements successfully won massive
"revolutionary reforms" - without, however, repudiating all of
constitutional achievements of preceding eras. This is what makes
"revolutions on a human scale" different from "normal politics," on the one
hand, as well as "total revolution," on the other.

Revolution on a human scale is a very difficult achievement. It is far
"easier" to repress mass mobilizations, and continue onward with "normal
politics." And it is always tempting to escalate into a "total revolution,"
even though this effort can lead to the infliction of great cruelty. But
American history shows that there is a third way between these two
extremes. Much of my work is devoted to explaining in detail how Americans
have repeatedly managed the difficult art of making revolutions on a human
scale.

A key concept is the "constitutional moment" - which lasts for ten or
fifteen years, not a few days or months. These are periods marked by an
escalating mass mobilization for fundamental change. A constitutional
moment begins when the leaders of the popular movement gain control of one
or another of the major institutions of American government - oftentimes
the presidency, but sometimes Congress or the Supreme Court. This generates
an intense political dialogue between the branch of government controlled
by the revolutionary reformers and the branches that continue to be
controlled by constitutional conservatives. This confrontation leads both
reformers and conservatives to mobilize their supporters at the next
election to gain a victory over their opponents. Sometimes, this electoral
struggle leads to a victory of the conservatives, and the end to
revolutionary politics for a generation. But sometimes the voters give
renewed support to the revolutionary political party, which returns to
Washington D.C. with greater power in more of the branches of American
government. A constitutional moment ends when the revolutionary party wins
a series of elections and finally dominates all of the key branches of
government - the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Presidency, and
the Supreme Court. Once this happens, there is a long period in which the
more traditional elements of the Constitution are adapted to make room for
the new revolutionary reform.

The American constitutional experience is particularly relevant to Chinese
readers for other reasons. Most obviously, it represents the first
successful anti-imperialist revolution of the modern era. While there are
plain differences between America's eighteenth century break with Britain
and China's twentieth century effort to repudiate its humiliating
subordination to the West, I encourage my readers to search for the
less-obvious similarities. Second, the American experience represents a
sustained effort to coordinate national policies made in Washington D.C.
with regional priorities established by state governments. Labels like
"federalism" are no substitute for deep historical understanding of the
very different relationships between Center and Periphery that have
actually inspired American constitutional practice over the past two
centuries.

There are doubtless many more fascinating parallels and differences that
will occur to Chinese readers of these volumes. I encourage them to think
and to write about them.

                                             ***

I am deeply indebted to Professor Lei Tian for his insight and dedication
in organizing this project. This edition of my collected works is a tribute
to his scholarly sophistication and to his deep understanding of the
intellectual ambitions inspiring my efforts. I am grateful for the years of
disciplined engagement that has made it possible for both of us, working
together, to offer this edition to the Chinese public.

（布鲁斯·阿克曼，耶鲁大学斯特林法学与政治学教授，本文为他为《阿克曼文集》中文版所专门写作的序言，由田雷译出）

布鲁斯·阿克曼，美国当代宪法学家与政治理论家，1943年出生于纽约市，先后毕业于哈佛大学（1964年）和耶鲁法学院（1967
年），曾任教于宾夕法尼亚大学法学院、耶鲁法学院和哥伦比亚大学法学院，自1987年始担任耶鲁大学斯特林法学与政治学讲座教授。阿克曼教授在政治理论、美国宪政与比较宪法领域内均有卓越的原创学术贡献。他的代表作品《我们人民》多卷本被认为是"过去半个世纪在整个宪法理论领域内所进行的最重要的工程"，2010年因《美利坚共和国的衰落》的出版而入选《外交政策》评选的全球百大思想家。

《阿克曼文集》（中国政法大学出版社出版，重庆大学人文社会科学高等研究院、北大法治中心协助）

1．《我们人民：根基》（汪庆华译）

2.《我们人民：转型》（田雷译）

3.《建国之父的失败：杰斐逊、马歇尔与总统制民主的兴起》（江照信译）

4.《美利坚共和国的衰落》（田雷译）

5.《自由革命的未来》（黄陀译）

人文与社会 :: 文章

布鲁斯·阿克曼：《阿克曼文集》序言