苏中政府模式与自由民主政府模式的悖论

IF 0.3 Q4 SOCIOLOGY Sociologiceskoe Obozrenie Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-75-94
Rouslan Khestanov, Artyom Kosmarski
{"title":"苏中政府模式与自由民主政府模式的悖论","authors":"Rouslan Khestanov, Artyom Kosmarski","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-75-94","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on two models of political and state formations, those of liberal-democratic and Soviet-Chinese. The use of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of decision in analyzing their systemic foundations opens a new perspective on both these models and the contemporary political process. A brief overview of the discussion on the topic of decision-making in organizations was offered, and the heuristic value of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of decision was substantiated. One of his key definitions of decision is that decision-making can be described as the transformation of uncertainty into risk. In this view, decision is seen as a function and element of the organization or organizational systems. An organization continuously makes decisions, though none solve the problem because it is based on a paradox: only those issues that are fundamentally undecidable can be decided. At the same time, each new decision is not only a response to the challenges of the surrounding world, but is contingently determined by a series of previous decisions. Therefore, one can say that the decision-making process is based on the paradox that constitutes the organization and determines its specificity and identity. The article demonstrates that the liberal-democratic model is based on the paradox of politics and administration. The Soviet-Chinese model is based on the paradox of party and state.","PeriodicalId":43314,"journal":{"name":"Sociologiceskoe Obozrenie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paradoxes of the Soviet-Chinese and Liberal-Democratic Models of Government\",\"authors\":\"Rouslan Khestanov, Artyom Kosmarski\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-75-94\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article focuses on two models of political and state formations, those of liberal-democratic and Soviet-Chinese. The use of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of decision in analyzing their systemic foundations opens a new perspective on both these models and the contemporary political process. A brief overview of the discussion on the topic of decision-making in organizations was offered, and the heuristic value of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of decision was substantiated. One of his key definitions of decision is that decision-making can be described as the transformation of uncertainty into risk. In this view, decision is seen as a function and element of the organization or organizational systems. An organization continuously makes decisions, though none solve the problem because it is based on a paradox: only those issues that are fundamentally undecidable can be decided. At the same time, each new decision is not only a response to the challenges of the surrounding world, but is contingently determined by a series of previous decisions. Therefore, one can say that the decision-making process is based on the paradox that constitutes the organization and determines its specificity and identity. The article demonstrates that the liberal-democratic model is based on the paradox of politics and administration. The Soviet-Chinese model is based on the paradox of party and state.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43314,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologiceskoe Obozrenie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologiceskoe Obozrenie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-75-94\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologiceskoe Obozrenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-75-94","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文重点讨论了两种政治和国家形成模式,即自由民主模式和苏中模式。利用卢曼的决策概念来分析其系统基础,为这些模式和当代政治过程打开了一个新的视角。简要概述了组织决策这一主题的讨论,并证实了卢曼的决策概念的启发式价值。他对决策的一个关键定义是,决策可以被描述为将不确定性转化为风险。在这种观点中,决策被视为组织或组织系统的一个功能和要素。一个组织不断地做决定,虽然没有一个能解决问题,因为它是基于一个悖论:只有那些根本无法确定的问题才能被决定。与此同时,每个新决策不仅是对周围世界挑战的回应,而且是由一系列先前的决策偶然决定的。因此,可以说决策过程是基于构成组织并决定其特殊性和特性的悖论。本文论证了自由民主模式是建立在政治悖论和行政悖论的基础之上的。苏中模式是建立在党与国家矛盾的基础上的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Paradoxes of the Soviet-Chinese and Liberal-Democratic Models of Government
The article focuses on two models of political and state formations, those of liberal-democratic and Soviet-Chinese. The use of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of decision in analyzing their systemic foundations opens a new perspective on both these models and the contemporary political process. A brief overview of the discussion on the topic of decision-making in organizations was offered, and the heuristic value of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of decision was substantiated. One of his key definitions of decision is that decision-making can be described as the transformation of uncertainty into risk. In this view, decision is seen as a function and element of the organization or organizational systems. An organization continuously makes decisions, though none solve the problem because it is based on a paradox: only those issues that are fundamentally undecidable can be decided. At the same time, each new decision is not only a response to the challenges of the surrounding world, but is contingently determined by a series of previous decisions. Therefore, one can say that the decision-making process is based on the paradox that constitutes the organization and determines its specificity and identity. The article demonstrates that the liberal-democratic model is based on the paradox of politics and administration. The Soviet-Chinese model is based on the paradox of party and state.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Russian Sociological Review is an academic peer-reviewed journal of theoretical, empirical and historical research in social sciences. Russian Sociological Review publishes four issues per year. Each issue includes original research papers, review articles and translations of contemporary and classical works in sociology, political theory and social philosophy. Russian Sociological Review invites scholars from all the social scientific disciplines to submit papers which address the fundamental issues of social sciences from various conceptual and methodological perspectives. Understood broadly the fundamental issues include but not limited to: social action and agency, social order, narrative, space and time, mobilities, power, etc. Russian Sociological Review covers the following domains of scholarship: -Contemporary and classical social theory -Theories of social order and social action -Social methodology -History of sociology -Russian social theory -Sociology of space -Sociology of mobilities -Social interaction -Frame analysis -Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis -Cultural sociology -Political sociology, philosophy and theory -Narrative theory and analysis -Human geography and urban studies
期刊最新文献
War in the Time of Love: Reflection on the Paper by Svyatoslav Kaspe in the Light of the Distinction between Private and Public Enmity in the Teachings of Carl Schmitt The “Orthodox Belt” on Russia’s Electoral Map in 2011–2021 The Representation and Politicization of the Covid-19 Pandemic on the Front Pages of the Daily Newspapers of Russia, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, and the United States The “Tyranny of Values” as the “will to Power”: on the Genealogy and Effects of Value Discourse in Justice Canons and Colonies: a Global Trajectory of Sociology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1