推 sunwei:我那時候考的時候也不知道XD 03/09 23:06
推 wict3:謝謝學姐^^ 03/10 00:07
推 chin1987:感謝^^ 03/10 00:16
※ 引述《chin1987 (欽)》之銘言：
: 唸了一段時間的書，還是有些問題不瞭解
: 我想請問一下
: 概念界定 現象解析
: 這兩個名詞是什麼意思？
: 所謂的「宏政治」和「微政治」又是什麼意思？
: 煩請解惑 謝謝！
: 如有不當 請刪此文
http://www.peterlevine.ws/mt/archives/2005/03/two_levels_of_p.html
two levels of politics
(Macon, Georgia.)
I have been recalling the conversations last Friday and Saturday at Catholic
University, especially some comments by Lew Friedland and Carmen Sirianni.
The following is my own view, but I believe it's generally consonant with
theirs.
We need two levels of politics. One involves major policy issues, the kind of
questions that are ultimately decided by legislative votes, court decisions,
and referenda. In considering these issues (e.g., taxation, welfare, war, or
the right to abortion), people fall into ideological groups that are
represented by major organizations and parties. Voting is a citizen's main
source of power. Debating, organizing, petitioning, and raising consciousness
are important, but they count only insofar as they change votes. Free and fair
elections are what make this level of politics democratic.
Politics at the macro-level can sometimes be "win-win" and creative. Wise
legislation and competent public administration can make everyone better off.
Nevertheless, a lot of macro-level politics is zero-sum, because (for example)
a victory for abortion rights is a loss for abortion opponents--and vice-versa
. Indeed, this level of politics should be competitive, because tough
competition between parties and ideologies gives citizens choices and keeps
incumbents honest. Besides, when parties are forced to compete, they mobilize
ordinary people to engage as voters and activists; thus competition encourages
participation. Perhaps the worst flaw in today's macro-politics is a lack of
fair competition caused by gerrymandered electoral districts, incumbents'
advantages in campaign finance, and various impediments to insurgent campaigns
and movements.
There is another level of politics--most common at the local level and within
institutions--that involves direct participation. At this level, many of the
people who will be directly affected by a decision should personally
participate in deliberations about it. For example, before a religious
congregation makes a major financial decision, often the whole group discusses
it. Furthermore, there is no need to isolate discussion from action at this
level of politics. The same people who meet and talk about an issue can also
implement their own decisions. A student government can decide to implement a
mentoring program and then actually serve as the mentors. A neighborhood group
can decide to protest a crackhouse and then actually picket it. An academic
department can choose a new curriculum and then actually teach it.
The micro-level of politics--characterized by direct participation,
deliberation, and "public work"--is not necessarily more pleasant or less
divisive than macro-politics. On the contrary, when issues arise in our
everyday lives, involve our identities as workers or neighbors or parents,
and cause disagreements with people we know well, politics can become
intensely emotional and painful. That's why "office politics" and "academic
politics" are phrases with very negative associations. Diana Mutz shows that
people tend to avoid controversy within families and social networks, and for
understandable reasons. Persistent disagreement can tear a group apart; and
even when most people agree, minorities may feel excluded and mistreated.
However, it is possible for micro-politics to be consensual and "win-win"
rather than competitive. Indeed, if the main problem with macro-politics is
a shortage of competition, the main flaw in micro-politics is a weak set of
institutions and practices that allow Americans to collaborate on common
problems.
I believe there are two main reasons that we need the micro-level as well as
the macro-level of politics. First, a whole range of issues is better
addressed in a participatory, deliberative way than through state action.
Governments can do some things well, but they cannot change hearts, care for
individuals holistically, or tailor solutions to local circumstances.
Second, participation in micro-level politics may be the most powerful form
of civic education, giving people confidence and deep knowledge of issues that
will enable them to participate in macro-politics effectively and wisely.
For those interested in such topics, some of the major texts include
Jenny Mansbridge's classic Beyond Adversary Democracy, Steve Elkin's City and
Regime in the American Republic, and Sirianni & Friedland's Civic Innovation
in America.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.204.73
※ 編輯: cokid 來自: 140.112.204.73 (03/09 13:54)