25、政治個人主義之方法個人主義
The methodological individualist points out that “we” in fact did not enact or carry out this policy; among those who voted, a certain group of people voted for the policy, individuals all, and another group voted against it. The decision that emerged was not made by the “people”, or by the “government”; it was made by those on the winning side of the vote. This is significant because in any collective there exists individuals who oppose the policy whose wills are being overridden, and the use of “we” tends to obs-cure that fact. The individualist wishes to highlight the importance of the individual and prevent subsumption into a collective. For these reasons, methodological individualists tend to disagree with claims such as “we deserve the government we have, because we are doing it to ourselves,” since perhaps that individual and very possibly many others disagree with the actions of the individuals who hold government power. That is to say, many individualists are willing to use “we” in reference to government or society as convenient shorthand as long as the fact that these entities are composed of individuals is kept in mind.
26、政治集體主義
Some consider an example of collectivist political philosophy to be Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract, which maintains that human society is organized along the lines of an implicit contract between members of society, and that the terms of this contract （e.g. the powers of government, the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens, etc.） are rightfully decided by the “general will”—that is, the will of the people. This idea is part of the philosophical foundation of democracy and inspired the early socialist and communist philosophers such as Hegel and Marx.
According to Moyra Grant, in political philosophy “collectivism” refers to any philoso-phy or system that sees any kind of group （such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.） as more important than the individual. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In socialist systems collectivism is carried to its furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy.”
27、政治集體主義觀點
However, political collectivism is not necessarily associated with support for states, governments, or other hierarchical institutions. There is also a variant of anarchism which calls itself collectivism. Collectivist anarchists, particularly Mikhail Bakunin, were among the earliest critics of authoritarian communism. They agree with communists that the means of production should be expropriated from private owners and converted to collective property, but they advocate the ownership of this collective property by a loose group of decentralized communes rather than a government. Nevertheless, unlike anarcho-communists, they supported a wage system and markets in non-capital goods. Thus, Bakunin’s “Collectivist Anarchism”, not withstanding the title, is seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism. Anarcho-communism is a more comprehensive form of non-state collectivism which advocates not only the collectivization of the means of production but of the products of labor as well. According to anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin, “houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished.”
28、代表製的應用
The only truly representative government for a population is the population itself. The logic of government open to all underpins the social forums （such as the World Social Forum） that have developed in contradistinction to the forums of the powerful. These alternative forms are sometimes called counter-power. This view appears in many projects of social change, but its founder Paulo Freire is largely unknown. Freire assumes that people carry archives of knowledge within them. In particular he rejects the idea that people remain ignorant unless they have learned to communicate using the culture of the powerful. The person is seen as part of a culture circle with its own view of reality, based on the circumstances of everyday living.
Dialogue can bring about social change. Such dialogue directly opposes the monologue of the culture of the powerful. Dialogue expands the understanding of the world rather than teaching a correct understanding. The process of social change starts with action, on which the group then reflects. Commonly, more action of some kind then results.
29、代表製與權力對抗
Gilles Deleuze, the twentieth century French philosopher, compared voting for political representation with being taken hostage. A representational government assumes that people can be divided into categories with distinct shared interests. The representative is regarded as embodying the interests of the group. Many social movements have been successful in gaining access to governments:the working class, women, young people and ethnic minorities are part of the government in many nation-states. However, there is no government where the government represents the population along the characteristics of the categories.
The problem of finding suitable representatives relates to an individual’s membership of different categories at the same time. The only truly representative government for a population is the population itself. These ideas have become popular in social movements for global justice. The logic of government open to all underpins the social forums （such as the World Social Forum） that have developed in contradistinction to the forums of the powerful. These alternative forms are sometimes called counter-power.
30、國際政治
Other scholars have proposed the concept of noopolitik, which refers to a dimension of international relations that is related to the formation of a “noosphere” or a global information environment. Noopolitik is projected as an alternative to realpolitik, the latter being the traditional approach to fostering the power of the state in the international arena, by negotiation, force, or the potential use of force. In a world characterized by globalization and shaped by information and communication, the ability to act on information flows, and on media messages, becomes an essential tool for fostering a political agenda.
With noopolitik, diplomacy will now include not only governments but also the societies they represent. This new diplomacy may prevent confrontation, increase the opportunity for alliances, and foster cultural and political hegemony. Embedded in this new diplomacy is the capacity to intervene in the process of mental representation underlying public opinion and collective political behavior at the national level.
31、信息時代與國際政治
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, Jr. reject the view that the information age will radically transform relations between nations. Their position is based on their belief that countries are already embedded in patterns of complex interdependence where “security and force matter less and countries are connected by multiple social and political relationships.” However, they judge that the information revolution alters patterns of complex interdependence by exponentially increasing the number of channels of communications in world politics—between individuals in networks, not just individuals within bureaucracies. But it exists in the context of an existing political structure, and its effects on the flows of different types of information vary vastly.
They also agree that in the 21st century, “information technology, broadly defined, is likely to be the most important power resource.”
32、引語：權力
“One needs to be nominalistic, no doubt: power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategic situation in a particular society.” （History of Sexuality, p.93）
“Domination” is not “that solid and global kind of domination that one person exercises over others, or one group over another, but the manifold forms of domination that can be exercised within society.” （ibid, p.96）
“One should try to locate power at the extreme of its exercise, where it is always less legal in character.” （ibid, p.97）
“The analysis （of power） should not attempt to consider power from its internal point of view and...should refrain from posing the labyrinthine and unanswerable question: ‘Who then has power and what has he in mind? What is the aim of someone who possesses power?’ Instead, it is a case of studying power at the point where its intention, if it has one, is completely invested in its real and effective practices.” （ibid, p.97）
“Let us ask...how things work at the level of on-going subjugation, at the level of those continuous and uninterrupted processes which subject our bodies, govern our gestures, dictate our behaviors, etc. we should try to discover how it is that subjects are gradually, progressively, really and materially constituted through a multiplicity of organisms, forces, energies, materials, desires, thoughts, etc. We should try to grasp subjection in its material instance as a constitution of subjects.” （ibid, p.97）
33、政府與民眾的鬥爭
Political bands between citizens and their governments generally need to be dissolved when the government becomes too oppressive. Oppressiveness is usually expressed through heavy taxation and the silencing of critics. In this situation, citizens usually form small militias and communities of support in order to withstand resistance from their governments once the government becomes aware that they no longer support it. The unwillingness to continue supporting one’s government is often called treason, sedition, or simply tax evasion. Unfortunately, these expressions of unwillingness are usually illegal, and so it is illegal for citizens to terminate a government, regardless of whether or not that government is worth anything to anyone.
34、直接民主的概念
Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions （decrees）, make law, elect and dismiss officials and conduct trials. Where the assembly elected officials, these were executive agents or direct representatives （bound to the will of the people）.
Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, elected periodically, but otherwise free to advance their own agendas. These two forms of democracy can be combined into representative direct democracy, where elected representatives vote on the behalf of citizens, as long as they do not choose to vote themselves.
Direct democracy also deals with how citizens are “directly” involved with voting for various laws, instead of voting for representative to decide for them.
35、政策的概念
A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome（s）. The term may apply to government, private sector organizations and groups, and individuals. Presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are all examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors （e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income） policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome.
Policy or policy study may also refer to the process of making important organizational decisions, including the identification of different alternatives such as programs or spending priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will have. Policies can be understood as political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals.