Pub Date : 2021-04-19DOI: 10.1177/14748851211002028
Ryan Hanley
This reply to my five generous and insightful critics – Gianna Englert, David Williams, Alexandra Oprea, Geneviève Rousslière, and Brandon Turner – focuses on three key issues they raise: the relationship of past ideas to present politics, the utility of ideological labels in the history of political thought, and the relationship of political philosophy to religion and theology.
{"title":"Reply to my critics","authors":"Ryan Hanley","doi":"10.1177/14748851211002028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211002028","url":null,"abstract":"This reply to my five generous and insightful critics – Gianna Englert, David Williams, Alexandra Oprea, Geneviève Rousslière, and Brandon Turner – focuses on three key issues they raise: the relationship of past ideas to present politics, the utility of ideological labels in the history of political thought, and the relationship of political philosophy to religion and theology.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"599 - 604"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211002028","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44433004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/1474885119858156
W. Scheuerman
The useful publication of Judith N Shklar's final undergraduate lectures at Harvard provides an opportunity to take a careful look at her reflections on political obligation, a matter always of great interest to Shklar, and one to which she devoted a great deal of energy in her final years. When read alongside her published writings and more formal scholarly presentations from the same period, we can discern three core ideas Shklar was struggling to formulate. First, she sought to defend individual moral conscience against those writers (e.g. Hannah Arendt) who have expressed skepticism about its role and typically circumscribed its political significance. Second, she targeted Michael Walzer and other communitarian models of political obligation, faulting them for obscuring fundamental differences between matters of personal loyalty and impersonal obligations to the state. Third, she highlighted the narrow confines of recent liberal accounts of political obligation, suggesting that the increasingly tired mainstream scholarly debate on the topic might be rejuvenated by exploring the complexities of political exile. Each of Shklar's observations remains pertinent to contemporary debates about political obligation and civil disobedience.
Judith N Shklar在哈佛大学的最后一次本科生讲座的有用出版物提供了一个机会，让我们仔细审视她对政治义务的思考，这是Shklar一直非常感兴趣的问题，也是她在最后几年投入了大量精力的问题。当与她出版的作品和同一时期更正式的学术报告一起阅读时，我们可以看出Shklar正在努力形成的三个核心思想。首先，她试图捍卫个人的道德良知，反对那些对其角色表示怀疑并通常限制其政治意义的作家（如汉娜·阿伦特）。其次，她针对迈克尔·沃尔泽和其他社群主义的政治义务模式，指责他们掩盖了个人忠诚和对国家的非个人义务之间的根本区别。第三，她强调了最近自由主义者对政治义务的狭隘描述，暗示通过探索政治流亡的复杂性，可能会重振日益疲惫的主流学术辩论。Shklar的每一个观点都与当代关于政治义务和公民抗命的辩论有关。
{"title":"Judith N Shklar as theorist of political obligation","authors":"W. Scheuerman","doi":"10.1177/1474885119858156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885119858156","url":null,"abstract":"The useful publication of Judith N Shklar's final undergraduate lectures at Harvard provides an opportunity to take a careful look at her reflections on political obligation, a matter always of great interest to Shklar, and one to which she devoted a great deal of energy in her final years. When read alongside her published writings and more formal scholarly presentations from the same period, we can discern three core ideas Shklar was struggling to formulate. First, she sought to defend individual moral conscience against those writers (e.g. Hannah Arendt) who have expressed skepticism about its role and typically circumscribed its political significance. Second, she targeted Michael Walzer and other communitarian models of political obligation, faulting them for obscuring fundamental differences between matters of personal loyalty and impersonal obligations to the state. Third, she highlighted the narrow confines of recent liberal accounts of political obligation, suggesting that the increasingly tired mainstream scholarly debate on the topic might be rejuvenated by exploring the complexities of political exile. Each of Shklar's observations remains pertinent to contemporary debates about political obligation and civil disobedience.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"366 - 376"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1474885119858156","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49505313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-28DOI: 10.1177/14748851211002031
Geneviève Rousselière
In his excellent new book, Hanley presents an engaging interpretation of Fénelon’s political thought as modern and moderate. While I salute the revival of the work of this important and forgotten author, and I concur with Hanley to see him as a courageous opponent of absolute monarchy, tyranny, and political corruption, I argue that Fénelon’s worldview was conservative, in the sense that he endorsed social hierarchy, rejected democracy, and ultimately praised subjection to God rather than reason.
{"title":"Fénelon, a conservative mind?","authors":"Geneviève Rousselière","doi":"10.1177/14748851211002031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211002031","url":null,"abstract":"In his excellent new book, Hanley presents an engaging interpretation of Fénelon’s political thought as modern and moderate. While I salute the revival of the work of this important and forgotten author, and I concur with Hanley to see him as a courageous opponent of absolute monarchy, tyranny, and political corruption, I argue that Fénelon’s worldview was conservative, in the sense that he endorsed social hierarchy, rejected democracy, and ultimately praised subjection to God rather than reason.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"593 - 598"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211002031","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41821183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.1177/14748851211002013
Brandon Turner
Drawing on his past work as an interpreter of Adam Smith, Hanley offers an account of Fénelon’s social and political thought that emphasizes the role (and the dangers) of pride and self-love in human affairs. Fénelon does not join those, like Mandeville and La Rochefoucauld, who seek to understand and possibly to control self-love. Instead, he attempts to wed a far more rigorous and classical approach to the problem of pride—namely, the refinement of self-love through virtuous practices—to a modern view of the state and political economy.
{"title":"Fénelon and the refinement of self-love","authors":"Brandon Turner","doi":"10.1177/14748851211002013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211002013","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on his past work as an interpreter of Adam Smith, Hanley offers an account of Fénelon’s social and political thought that emphasizes the role (and the dangers) of pride and self-love in human affairs. Fénelon does not join those, like Mandeville and La Rochefoucauld, who seek to understand and possibly to control self-love. Instead, he attempts to wed a far more rigorous and classical approach to the problem of pride—namely, the refinement of self-love through virtuous practices—to a modern view of the state and political economy.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"575 - 579"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211002013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42370872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.1177/1474885121992033
Jinyu Sun
Why should (or should not) we have a system of different states that each claim both internal and external sovereignty? How can the state gain its legitimate authority to rule? What is the problem with the ideal of the ‘global citizen’? How should states respond to different groups’ secession claims? To what extent should states have the right to control their borders? If one finds such questions intriguing, one should read Anna Stilz’s book Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration. Stilz argues that a system of territorial states serves to protect important values – occupancy, basic justice and collective self-determination – which are key to living an autonomous life. I focus on the theory’s implication for the debates on border control. I contend that Stilz’s arguments still have difficulties grounding the state’s right to exclude would-be immigrants. That said, the book has done a great job in providing a liberal theoretical framework for us to reflect upon citizenship, immigration, succession claims, cosmopolitan ideals, the colonial legacy and disputes over borders and resources.
{"title":"Do self-determining states have a conditional right to exclude would-be immigrants?","authors":"Jinyu Sun","doi":"10.1177/1474885121992033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885121992033","url":null,"abstract":"Why should (or should not) we have a system of different states that each claim both internal and external sovereignty? How can the state gain its legitimate authority to rule? What is the problem with the ideal of the ‘global citizen’? How should states respond to different groups’ secession claims? To what extent should states have the right to control their borders? If one finds such questions intriguing, one should read Anna Stilz’s book Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration. Stilz argues that a system of territorial states serves to protect important values – occupancy, basic justice and collective self-determination – which are key to living an autonomous life. I focus on the theory’s implication for the debates on border control. I contend that Stilz’s arguments still have difficulties grounding the state’s right to exclude would-be immigrants. That said, the book has done a great job in providing a liberal theoretical framework for us to reflect upon citizenship, immigration, succession claims, cosmopolitan ideals, the colonial legacy and disputes over borders and resources.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"21 1","pages":"412 - 420"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1474885121992033","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43669382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.1177/14748851211002016
Gianna Englert
In The Political Philosophy of Fénelon, Ryan Hanley argues that Fénelon was a realist who aimed to elevate and educate self-love—rather than resist it—in order to avoid tyranny. This roundtable article examines two of Fenelon’s arguments for how self-love, well-directed, could circumvent a king’s absolutist and tyrannical inclinations: 1) the king’s need to be loved and to love in turn, and 2) the relationship between faith and politics / church and state. Contrasting Fénelon with Machiavelli, I question whether the ruler’s “need-love” for his people leaves him susceptible to forms of domination or at least, as Machiavelli warned, renders them politically weak. Given Hanley’s interest to recover Fénelon for the present day, I conclude by arguing that the thinker’s insights about the limiting role of well-directed self-love are inescapably tied to his critiques of absolutism. The same need-love of the people, I argue, cannot similarly check executive power under democracy. Nonetheless, Fénelon’s perspective remains valuable, as does Hanley’s project of recovery, since democracies continue to reckon with particular problems raised by self-love.
{"title":"Fénelon and the political summum malum of self-love","authors":"Gianna Englert","doi":"10.1177/14748851211002016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211002016","url":null,"abstract":"In The Political Philosophy of Fénelon, Ryan Hanley argues that Fénelon was a realist who aimed to elevate and educate self-love—rather than resist it—in order to avoid tyranny. This roundtable article examines two of Fenelon’s arguments for how self-love, well-directed, could circumvent a king’s absolutist and tyrannical inclinations: 1) the king’s need to be loved and to love in turn, and 2) the relationship between faith and politics / church and state. Contrasting Fénelon with Machiavelli, I question whether the ruler’s “need-love” for his people leaves him susceptible to forms of domination or at least, as Machiavelli warned, renders them politically weak. Given Hanley’s interest to recover Fénelon for the present day, I conclude by arguing that the thinker’s insights about the limiting role of well-directed self-love are inescapably tied to his critiques of absolutism. The same need-love of the people, I argue, cannot similarly check executive power under democracy. Nonetheless, Fénelon’s perspective remains valuable, as does Hanley’s project of recovery, since democracies continue to reckon with particular problems raised by self-love.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"587 - 592"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211002016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43676640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-24DOI: 10.1177/14748851211001550
James Vitali
Jeremy Bentham is usually seen as an anti-realist political thinker, or a proponent of what Bernard Williams has termed ‘political moralism’. This article questions that prevalent view and suggests instead that there are good grounds for considering Bentham a political realist. Bentham’s political thought has considerable commonalities with that of the sociologist and political realist Max Weber: both agree that politics is a unique domain of human activity defined by its association with power; that consequently, ethical conduct is unavoidably inflected by power in politics; that a commitment to truth in politics can only ever be contingent; and that politics has a set of basic conditions that it would be not only misguided but dangerous to attempt to transcend. Whilst it is often held that Bentham advanced a reductive framework for understanding politics, in fact, his utilitarianism was a far more realistic approach to political ends and means than has generally been acknowledged, and one that contemporary political theory realists would benefit from taking seriously.
{"title":"The political realism of Jeremy Bentham","authors":"James Vitali","doi":"10.1177/14748851211001550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211001550","url":null,"abstract":"Jeremy Bentham is usually seen as an anti-realist political thinker, or a proponent of what Bernard Williams has termed ‘political moralism’. This article questions that prevalent view and suggests instead that there are good grounds for considering Bentham a political realist. Bentham’s political thought has considerable commonalities with that of the sociologist and political realist Max Weber: both agree that politics is a unique domain of human activity defined by its association with power; that consequently, ethical conduct is unavoidably inflected by power in politics; that a commitment to truth in politics can only ever be contingent; and that politics has a set of basic conditions that it would be not only misguided but dangerous to attempt to transcend. Whilst it is often held that Bentham advanced a reductive framework for understanding politics, in fact, his utilitarianism was a far more realistic approach to political ends and means than has generally been acknowledged, and one that contemporary political theory realists would benefit from taking seriously.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"260 - 280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211001550","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41406092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-17DOI: 10.1177/14748851211001549
Patrick Cockburn
For several decades, public political discourses on ‘welfare dependency’ have failed to recognise that welfare states are not the source of economic dependence, but rather reconfigure economic dependencies in a specific way. This article distinguishes four senses of ‘economic dependence’ that can help to clarify what is missing from these discourses, and what is at stake in political and legal decisions about how we may economically depend upon one another. While feminist, republican and egalitarian philosophical work has examined the problems of dependence on states, in families and in markets, the present approach adds a further dimension to our cultural and political concerns with economic dependence: it argues that it is reasonable and useful to consider the economic dependence of the economically powerful. Doing so requires a clarification of the ‘varieties of dependence’ that exist in contemporary societies and economies, and the recognition that legal and political choices regarding social and economic justice are often about choosing between varieties of dependence, not about escaping dependence entirely.
{"title":"Varieties of economic dependence","authors":"Patrick Cockburn","doi":"10.1177/14748851211001549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211001549","url":null,"abstract":"For several decades, public political discourses on ‘welfare dependency’ have failed to recognise that welfare states are not the source of economic dependence, but rather reconfigure economic dependencies in a specific way. This article distinguishes four senses of ‘economic dependence’ that can help to clarify what is missing from these discourses, and what is at stake in political and legal decisions about how we may economically depend upon one another. While feminist, republican and egalitarian philosophical work has examined the problems of dependence on states, in families and in markets, the present approach adds a further dimension to our cultural and political concerns with economic dependence: it argues that it is reasonable and useful to consider the economic dependence of the economically powerful. Doing so requires a clarification of the ‘varieties of dependence’ that exist in contemporary societies and economies, and the recognition that legal and political choices regarding social and economic justice are often about choosing between varieties of dependence, not about escaping dependence entirely.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"195 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211001549","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48576421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-16DOI: 10.1177/14748851211002022
Alexandra Oprea
Ryan Patrick Hanley makes two original claims about François Fénelon: (1) that he is best regarded as a political philosopher, and (2) that his political philosophy is best understood as “moderate and modern.” In what follows, I raise two concerns about Hanley’s revisionist turn. First, I argue that the role of philosophy in Fénelon’s account is rather as a handmaiden of theology than as an autonomous area of inquiry—with implications for both the theory and practice of politics. Second, I use Fénelon’s writings on the education of women as an illustration of the more radical and reactionary aspects of his thought. Despite these limits, the book makes a compelling case for recovering Fénelon and opens up new conversations about education, religion, political economy, and international relations in early modern political thought.
{"title":"François Fénelon: Modern philosopher or conservative theologian?","authors":"Alexandra Oprea","doi":"10.1177/14748851211002022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211002022","url":null,"abstract":"Ryan Patrick Hanley makes two original claims about François Fénelon: (1) that he is best regarded as a political philosopher, and (2) that his political philosophy is best understood as “moderate and modern.” In what follows, I raise two concerns about Hanley’s revisionist turn. First, I argue that the role of philosophy in Fénelon’s account is rather as a handmaiden of theology than as an autonomous area of inquiry—with implications for both the theory and practice of politics. Second, I use Fénelon’s writings on the education of women as an illustration of the more radical and reactionary aspects of his thought. Despite these limits, the book makes a compelling case for recovering Fénelon and opens up new conversations about education, religion, political economy, and international relations in early modern political thought.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"580 - 586"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211002022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48679413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-16DOI: 10.1177/14748851211000604
Jonathan Havercroft
Duncan Bell’s Empire, Race and Global Justice is an edited volume that makes an important intervention in philosophical debates about global justice. Its contributors argue that global justice scholarship has paid insufficient attention to the role of imperialism and racism in generating global hierarchies. This review considers the contributions of this volume from three perspectives: as a critique of the global justice literature, as a guide for what methods global justice scholars should use and as a reconsideration of what texts should be incorporated into the global justice canon. Empire is an important book for anyone who researches and teaches in the area of global justice because it demonstrates both why a different approach to this topic is necessary and how a different approach is possible.
{"title":"The injustices of global justice scholarship","authors":"Jonathan Havercroft","doi":"10.1177/14748851211000604","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211000604","url":null,"abstract":"Duncan Bell’s Empire, Race and Global Justice is an edited volume that makes an important intervention in philosophical debates about global justice. Its contributors argue that global justice scholarship has paid insufficient attention to the role of imperialism and racism in generating global hierarchies. This review considers the contributions of this volume from three perspectives: as a critique of the global justice literature, as a guide for what methods global justice scholars should use and as a reconsideration of what texts should be incorporated into the global justice canon. Empire is an important book for anyone who researches and teaches in the area of global justice because it demonstrates both why a different approach to this topic is necessary and how a different approach is possible.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"161 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14748851211000604","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47330002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：