[翻譯] 史丹佛線上哲學百科公民不服從條目。

[Yures (優而仕。)]

寫在前面：


這篇文章是史丹佛線上哲學百科的公民不服從條目。

史丹佛線上哲學百科的條目都通過嚴格的學術審查，視作已出版。

希望引用下述文章的人們可以參考 http://ppt.cc/OPor 的說明。


儘管譯者已經翻譯完整個條目，自行校對卻止於該條目的前言與第一部份。

因此也只先釋出這些片段聊備討論，後續部份暫待我繼續努力再行釋出...


譯者是台灣大學哲學所研究生，卻並非專門研究政治哲學，更非專業譯者；

因此，如果能夠獲得任何回饋指正，我將非常感激。


"justify" 或其對應的形容詞 "justifiable"、對應名詞 "justification"

於哲學領域是指給予某個信念好的理由以支持該信念。

這個術語通常翻譯作「證成」，我則依循業師彭孟堯教授的習慣翻譯作「證立」。

當我說「某行動是具備道德證立的」，就是在說「我們有好理由認為該行動是道德的」；

而「某行動的道德證立是 x」的意思則是「我們認為該行動是道德的好理由是 x」。


"ordinary offences" 我翻譯作「常俗違法」，就是日常生活常見的犯罪行為；

例如並非出於抵禦而手持棍棒毆打他人顏面、竊盜搶劫等等。

該條目提及這個概念主要是企圖區分公民不服從與那些日常的犯罪行為，

進而提供公民不服從的正當性。

因此，我對比於公民不服從這種正當的違法，翻譯該詞彙作「常俗違法」。


我不是很確定是否應該提供導讀或眉批夾註，姑且先上色重點...






Civil Disobedience                      Kimberley Brownlee

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/civil-disobedience/

公民不服從                              翻譯：陳佑竹


First published Thu Jan 4, 2007; substantive revision Fri Dec 20, 2013

初版於 2007 年一月 4 日；審訂於 2013 年十二月 20 日。


What makes a breach of law an act of civil disobedience? When is civil

disobedience morally justified? How should the law respond to people who

engage in civil disobedience? Discussions of civil disobedience have tended

to focus on the first two of these questions. On the most widely accepted

account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil

disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law

undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government

policies. On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience are

willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as this shows

their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the

boundary of fidelity to law, is said to fall between legal protest, on the

one hand, and conscientious refusal, revolutionary action, militant protest

and organised forcible resistance, on the other hand.

什麼因素使得某些違反法律的行為算作公民不服從？哪些情況公民不服從具備道德證立？

法律應該如何處置那些實施公民不服從的人們？公民不服從的相關討論傾向聚焦於前兩個

議題。廣為接受的解釋是 John Rawls 著名的辯護：公民不服從是公開的、非暴力的、良

善的違法，試圖實現法律抑或政策的改變。於這個解釋，實施公民不服從的人們願意接受

這些行為的法律結果，因為這展現他們對於法律規制的信賴。公民不服從位於信賴法律的

邊界，過渡於合法抗議、以及不合作運動、革命行動、軍事抗議、組織武裝抗爭之間。


This picture of civil disobedience raises many questions. Why must civil

disobedience be non-violent? Why must it be public, in the sense of

forewarning authorities of the intended action, since publicity gives

authorities an opportunity to interfere with the action? Why must people who

engage in civil disobedience be willing to accept punishment? A general

challenge to Rawls's conception of civil disobedience is that it is overly

narrow, and as such it predetermines the conclusion that most acts of civil

disobedience are morally justifiable. A further challenge is that Rawls

applies his theory of civil disobedience only to the context of a nearly just

society, leaving unclear whether a credible conception of either the nature

or the justification of civil disobedience could follow the same lines in the

context of less just societies. Some broader accounts of civil disobedience

offered in response to Rawls's view (Raz, 1979; Greenawalt, 1987) will be

examined in the first section of this entry.

這個對於公民不服從的描繪引發許多問題。為什麼公民不服從必須是非暴力的？為什麼必

須是公開的，畢竟公開就相當於警告了當權者，允許他採取行動、給予他機會介入？為什

麼實現公民不服從的人們必須願意接受懲罰？通常對於 Rawls 進路的挑戰就是這樣的概

念太過狹隘，以致預先決定了大多數公民不服從可具備道德證立。更進一步的批評是

 Rawls 的理論只適用於近幾正義的社會脈絡；對於較不正義的社會中公民不服從本質與

證立， Rawls 並未提供較清楚而可信的概念。對於公民不服從較廣義的解釋通常是回應

 Rawls 的觀點 (Raz, 1979; Greenawalt, 1987)，這些觀點將在這個條目的第一區塊將

進行檢視。


This entry has four main sections. The first considers some definitional

issues and contrasts civil disobedience with both ordinary offences and other

types of dissent. The second analyses two sets of factors relevant to the

justification of civil disobedience; one set concerns the disobedient's

particular choice of action, the other concerns her motivation for so acting.

The third section examines whether people have a right to engage in civil

disobedience. The fourth considers what kind of legal response to civil

disobedience is appropriate.

這個條目具備四個主要區塊：第一區塊慮及公民不服從的定義，並且對比於常俗違法、以

及反對運動的其他類型；第二區塊分析相干於公民不服從證立的兩個因素，特定的行動選

擇、以及那樣行動的動機；第三區塊檢視人們是否具備權利實現公民不服從；第四區塊討

論哪些對於公民不服從的法律處置是適切的。


1. Definitions

1. 定義

1.1 Features of Civil Disobedience

1.1 公民不服從的要素

1.2 Ordinary Offences

1.2 常俗違法

1.3 Other Types of Dissent

1.3 其他類型的反對運動

2. Justification

2. 證立

2.1 Mode of Action

2.1 行動模式

2.2 Motivation for Acting

2.1行動動機

3. Rights

3. 權利

4. Punishment

4. 懲罰

4.1 Theories of Punishment

4.1 懲罰理論

4.2 Punishing Civil Disobedience

4.2 對於公民不服從的懲罰

5. Conclusion

5. 結論

Bibliography

參考書目

Academic Tools

學術工具

Other Internet Resources

其他網路資源

Related Entries

相關條目



1. Definitions

1. 定義


The term ‘civil disobedience’ was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848

essay to describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the

American government to prosecute a war in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive

Slave Law. In his essay, Thoreau observes that only a very few people –

 heroes, martyrs, patriots, reformers in the best sense – serve their

society with their consciences, and so necessarily resist society for the

most part, and are commonly treated by it as enemies. Thoreau, for his part,

spent time in jail for his protest. Many after him have proudly identified

their protests as acts of civil disobedience and have been treated by their

societies – sometimes temporarily, sometimes indefinitely – as its enemies.


「公民不服從」這個詞彙是由 Henry David Thoreau 創建於其 1848 年的文章，這篇文

章描述他拒絕繳納美國政府由於支援墨西哥戰爭、以及施行逃奴法而徵收的人頭稅。於這

篇文章，Thoreau 觀察到只有非常少數人─最值得稱道的英雄、烈士、愛國者、與改革者

們─能夠依憑良心服務他們的社會，他們也因而必然大致對立於社會，也通常被社會當作

仇敵對待。例如 Thoreau 自己就由於抗爭鋃鐺入獄。許多 Thoreau 的追隨者驕傲地認定

他們的抗議就是公民不服從的行動，而他們也往往被社會─或者短暫地、或者不明確地─

當作仇敵對待。


Throughout history, acts of civil disobedience famously have helped to force

a reassessment of society's moral parameters. The Boston Tea Party, the

suffragette movement, the resistance to British rule in India led by Gandhi,

the US civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and

others, the resistance to apartheid in South Africa, student sit-ins against

the Vietnam War, the democracy movement in Myanmar/Burma led by Aung San Suu

Kyi, to name a few, are all instances where civil disobedience proved to be

an important mechanism for social change. The ultimate impact of more recent

acts of civil disobedience – anti-abortion trespass demonstrations or acts

of disobedience taken as part of the environmental movement and animal rights

movement – remains to be seen.

綜觀歷史，證實公民不服從行動導致社會改變的案例眾多：公民不服從的行動強迫社會重

新審視各項道德指標。波士頓茶葉事件、婦女投票權運動、甘地於印度對於英國統治的反

抗、馬丁路德金恩的美國公民權利運動、羅莎帕克、南非對於種族隔離的抵抗、學生反對

越戰的靜坐、翁山蘇姬於緬甸的民主運動。這些行動對於最近公民不服從行動產生的極大

影響仍舊可見─反墮胎的侵入示威、抑或部份環保與動物權運動。


Certain features of civil disobedience seem vital not only to its impact on

societies and governments, but also to its status as a potentially

justifiable breach of law. Civil disobedience is generally regarded as more

morally defensible than both ordinary offences and other forms of protest

such as militant action or coercive violence. Before contrasting civil

disobedience with both ordinary offences and other types of protest,

attention should be given to the features exemplified in the influential

cases noted above. These features include, amongst other things, a

conscientious or principled outlook and the communication of both

condemnation and a desire for change in law or policy. Other features

commonly cited – publicity, non-violence, fidelity to law – will also be

considered here though they prove to be less central than is sometimes

assumed. The second part of this section contrasts civil disobedience with

ordinary offences and the third part contrasts it with legal protest, rule

departures by officials, conscientious objection, radical protest (often

labelled ‘terrorism’), and revolutionary action.

公民不服從的某些特定因素似乎相當關鍵：不只因為公民不服從對於社會與政府的影響力

，也因為公民不服從這種狀態的違法能夠具備證立。對比於常俗違法與其他的抗爭形式，

例如軍事行動抑或強加暴力，公民不服從通常更被視作道德正當。於對比公民不服從與常

俗違法和抗爭的其他形式以前，我們應該注意上述具備影響力的案例展現的特徵，最重要

的特徵包括良善或具備原則的願景、傳達對於法律或政策的譴責與期待改變的渴望；其他

通常被提及的特徵包括公開、非暴力、信賴法律─僅管這些其他特徵不如有時假定的那樣

核心。這個區域的第二部分對比公民不服從與常俗違法，第三部分則對比於合法抗議、公

務人員的脫離規制、不合作運動、激進抗爭 (通常被標示作「恐怖主義」)、以及革命行

動。



1.1 Features of Civil Disobedience

1.1 公民不服從的要素


Conscientiousness: This feature, highlighted in almost all accounts of civil

disobedience, points to the seriousness, sincerity and moral conviction with

which civil disobedients breach the law. For many disobedients, their breach

of law is demanded of them not only by self-respect and moral consistency but

also by their perception of the interests of their society. Through their

disobedience, they draw attention to laws or policies that they believe

require reassessment or rejection. Whether their challenges are well-founded

is another matter, which will be taken up in Section 2.

良善：絕大多數對於公民不服從的解釋強調這個特徵，指出公民不服從者是伴隨著嚴肅、

誠懇與道德信條而違反法律。對於許多不服從者而言，他們對於違法的需求不只出於自尊

以及道德一致，也出於他們察覺其社會能夠獲益；藉由這些不服從，他們要求重新評估抑

或拒絕這些法律或政策，並且引發對於某些法律或政策的注意。這些不服從是否具備堅實

基礎是另個議題，這個議題將於第二區塊進行討論。


On Rawls's account of civil disobedience, in a nearly just society, civil

disobedients address themselves to the majority to show that, in their

considered opinion, the principles of justice governing cooperation amongst

free and equal persons have not been respected by policymakers. Rawls's

restriction of civil disobedience to breaches that defend the principles of

justice may be criticised for its narrowness since, presumably, a wide range

of legitimate values not wholly reducible to justice, such as transparency,

security, stability, privacy, integrity, and autonomy, could motivate people

to engage in civil disobedience. However, Rawls does allow that

considerations arising from people's comprehensive moral outlooks may be

offered in the public sphere provided that, in due course, people present

public reasons, given by a reasonable political conception of justice,

sufficient to support whatever their comprehensive doctrines were introduced

to support (Rawls, 1996). Rawls's proviso grants that people often engage in

the public sphere for a variety of reasons; so even when justice figures

prominently in a person's decision to use civil disobedience, other

considerations could legitimately contribute to her decision to act. The

activism of Martin Luther King Jr. is a case in point. King was motivated by

his religious convictions and his commitments to democracy, equality, and

justice to undertake protests such as the Montgomery bus boycott. Rawls

maintains that, while he does not know whether King thought of himself as

fulfilling the purpose of the proviso, King could have fulfilled it; and had

he accepted public reason he certainly would have fulfilled it. Thus, on

Rawls's view, King's activism is civil disobedience.

Rawls 對於公民不服從的解釋是：於某個近幾正義的社會，公民不服從者朝向大眾這樣表

達訴求─於他們的考量，政策制定者並未尊重自由且平等的人民出於合作而賦予政府管理

的正義原則。Rawls 限制公民不服從的違法行動只出於捍衛正義原則，卻也可能招致過於

狹隘的批評，因為驅動人們實施公民不服從的正當價值─例如透明、安全、穩定、隱私、

正直、與自主─範圍太廣，無法化約作正義。然而，Rawls 也允許人們最終展現於公領域

的公開理由只是出於他們廣泛綜合的道德理解，只要這個理由引入的原則能夠合理地被政

治哲學的正義概念所充分支持。Rawls 的但書允許人民出於各種理由涉入公領域；所以，

如果人們主要出於正義考量而行使公民不服從，那麼其他決定這個行動的考量也算作正當

的。比方說，馬丁路德金恩的運動就是個標準案例：金恩的動機是宗教信條、與對於民主

、平等、正義的肯認，這個動機驅動他發起諸如蒙歌馬利的公車抗議。Rawls 強調：儘管

我們不知道金恩是否實際認為自己滿足這個但書，金恩是能夠滿足這個但書的；假使金恩

確實接受公開理由，他也將當滿足這項公開理由。因此，Rawls 認為，金恩的運動是公民

不服從。


Since people can undertake political protest for a variety of reasons, civil

disobedience sometimes overlaps with other forms of dissent. A US

draft-dodger during the Vietnam War might be said to combine civil

disobedience and conscientious objection in the same action. And, most

famously, Gandhi may be credited with combining civil disobedience with

revolutionary action. That said, despite the potential for overlap, some

broad distinctions may be drawn between civil disobedience and other forms of

protest in terms of the scope of the action and agents' motivations (Section

1.3).

既然人民能夠由於多樣的理由進行政治抗爭，某些公民不服從也就重疊於其他類型式的反

對運動。越戰期間的美國逃兵可能被稱作結合公民不服從與不合作運動。另外，最著名的

是甘地被認作是結合公民不服從與革命行動。也就是說，無論是否可能重疊，藉由行為的

範圍與行為者的動機，我們還是能夠粗略地區分公民不服從與其他形式的抗爭 (參見區塊

 1.3)。


Communication: In civilly disobeying the law, a person typically has both

forward-looking and backward-looking aims. She seeks not only to convey her

disavowal and condemnation of a certain law or policy, but also to draw

public attention to this particular issue and thereby to instigate a change

in law or policy. A parallel may be drawn between the communicative aspect of

civil disobedience and the communicative aspect of lawful punishment by the

state (Brownlee, 2012; 2004). Like civil disobedience, lawful punishment is

associated with a backward-looking aim to demonstrate condemnation of certain

conduct as well as a forward-looking aim to bring about a lasting change in

that conduct. The forward and backward-looking aims of punishment apply not

only to the particular offence in question, but also to the kind of conduct

of which this offence is an example.

溝通：於公民不服從的違法，人們通常具備期待與回顧的雙重目標。人們不只試圖傳達對

於特定法律或政策的鄙視對與譴責，也試圖吸引大眾對於這些特定議題的注意，連帶刺激

著對於特定法律或政策的改變。溝通具備兩個面向：公民不服從本身的面向、以及國家法

律懲罰的面向 (Brownlee, 2012; 2004) 。如同運動本身，法律懲罰同時連結著回顧與期

待的雙重目標：回顧面向展示於譴責特定舉止、期待面向展示於實現這個行為的長期改變

。懲罰的雙重目標不只針對某個違法、也同時在殺雞儆猴。


There is some dispute over the kinds of policies that civil disobedients may

target through their breach of law. Some exclude from the class of civilly

disobedient acts those breaches of law that protest the decisions of private

agents such as trade unions, banks, private universities, etc. (Raz, 1979,

264). Others, by contrast, maintain that disobedience in opposition to the

decisions of private agents can reflect a larger challenge to the legal

system that permits those decisions to be taken, which makes it appropriate

to place this disobedience under the umbrella of civil disobedience

(Brownlee, 2012; 2007). There is more agreement amongst thinkers that civil

disobedience can be either direct or indirect. In other words, civil

disobedients can either breach the law they oppose or breach a law which,

other things being equal, they do not oppose in order to demonstrate their

protest against another law or policy. Trespassing on a military base to

spray-paint nuclear missile silos in protest against current military policy

would be an example of indirect civil disobedience. It is worth noting that

the distinction often drawn between direct civil disobedience and indirect

civil disobedience is less clear-cut than generally assumed. For example,

refusing to pay taxes that support the military could be seen as either

indirect or direct civil disobedience against military policy. Although this

act typically would be classified as indirect disobedience, a part of one's

taxes, in this case, would have gone directly to support the policy one

opposes.

對於公民不服從的違法能夠針對哪些政策尚且爭論不休。某些理論排除針對私人決策實施

的抗議，例如商業團體、銀行、私立大學等等 (Raz, 1979, 264)。相反地，某些理論承

認針對私人決策實施的抗議，因為這些抗議可以反映更高層次的挑戰─因為這些私人決策

也是由於法律系統的允許，而這份允許使得這些抗議適用於公民不服從的範疇

 (Brownlee, 2012; 2007)。思想家間大多同意公民不服從能夠直接或間接實施；也就是

說，公民不服從可以選擇違反他們反對的法律，抑或，於其他條件維持相同的狀況下，違

反那些他們的抗爭並非反對的法律或政策。間接公民不服從的案例可以是抗議當局軍事政

策而入侵軍事基地噴漆核彈發射井。注意：直接或間接的這組區分沒有人們通常假設的那

樣清楚。例如，拒絕納稅支持軍隊可以視作是對於軍事政策直接或間接的不服從。儘管這

個行動典型地被區分作間接不服從，然而，於這個案例，這個人的部份稅金可能也直接支

持這個人反對的政策。


Publicity: The feature of communication may be contrasted with that of

publicity. The latter is endorsed by Rawls who argues that civil disobedience

is never covert or secretive; it is only ever committed in public, openly,

and with fair notice to legal authorities (Rawls, 1971, 366). Hugo A. Bedau

adds to this that usually it is essential to the dissenter's purpose that

both the government and the public know what she intends to do (Bedau, 1961,

655). However, although sometimes advance warning may be essential to a

dissenter's strategy, this is not always the case. As noted at the outset,

publicity sometimes detracts from or undermines the attempt to communicate

through civil disobedience. If a person publicises her intention to breach

the law, then she provides both political opponents and legal authorities

with the opportunity to abort her efforts to communicate (Smart, 1991, 206).

For this reason, unannounced or (initially) covert disobedience is sometimes

preferable to actions undertaken publicly and with fair warning. Examples

include releasing animals from research laboratories or vandalising military

property; to succeed in carrying out these actions, disobedients would have

to avoid publicity of the kind Rawls defends. Such acts of civil disobedience

nonetheless may be regarded as ‘open’ when followed soon after by an

acknowledgment of the act and the reasons for acting. Openness and publicity,

even at the cost of having one's protest frustrated, offer ways for

disobedients to show their willingness to deal fairly with authorities.

公開：溝通這項要素可能相左於公開。Rawls 鼓吹公開，主張公民不服從從未隱瞞或保密

；公民不服從應該開放地獲得大眾的肯認，並且引發司法機關的充分注意 (Rawls,

1971, 366)。Hugo A. Bedau 更主張：對於反對運動者的目標而言，政府與大眾對於其運

動意圖的認識都是不可或缺的 (Bedau, 1961, 655)。然而，儘管某些狀況給予大眾及政

府進一步的警示對於反對運動者的策略是必要的，某些狀況卻恰恰相反。如同開始提及的

那樣，公開這項要素有時候屈從於行動者希望藉由不服從達成溝通的意圖。如果某個人公

開表明他違法的意圖，他就相當於提供政治對手與司法機關機會，掐滅他進行溝通的努力

 (Smart, 1991, 206)。因此，相較於公開且引發充分注意的行動，不服從者有時候還是

比較傾向採取未宣傳或 (於開始階段) 隱瞞的不服從。這些案例包括從研究實驗室釋放動

物、破壞軍事設施；想成功實現這些行動，不服從者將當避免 Rawls 主張的那種公開要

素。然而這樣的行動可能也被視作「開放的」，因為不服從者將當迅速承認這些行動、以

及周告這樣行動的理由。儘管開放與公開要素具備種種挫敗抗爭行動的代價，卻也提供不

服從者途徑以展現合理對待當權者的意志。


Non-violence: A controversial issue in debates on civil disobedience is

non-violence. Like publicity, non-violence is said to diminish the negative

effects of breaching the law. Some theorists go further and say that civil

disobedience is, by definition, non-violent. According to Rawls, violent acts

likely to injure are incompatible with civil disobedience as a mode of

address. ‘Indeed’, says Rawls, ‘any interference with the civil liberties

of others tends to obscure the civilly disobedient quality of one's act.’

(Rawls, 1971, 366).

非暴力：另個爭議圍繞著公民不服從是不是非暴力的。如同公開要素，非暴力被視作能夠

降低違法的負面影響。某些理論家企圖主張得更強；他們主張公民不服從的定義就包括非

暴力。根據 Rawls，可能導致傷害的暴力行動使得公民不服從無法作為向大眾表達訴求的

方式。「事實地，」Rawls 說：「任何對於其他公民自由的干預都容易模糊公民不服從的

行動品質。」(Rawls, 1971, 366)。


Even though paradigmatic disobedients like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr

embody Rawls's image of non-violent direct action, opponents of Rawls's view

have challenged the centrality of non-violence for civil disobedience on

several fronts. First, there is the problem of specifying an appropriate

notion of violence. It is unclear, for example, whether violence to self,

violence to property, or minor violence against others (such as a vicious

pinch) should be included in a conception of the relevant kinds of violence.

If the significant criterion for a commonsense notion of a violent act is a

likelihood of causing injury, however minor, then these kinds of acts count

as acts of violence (See Morreall, 1991). Second, non-violent acts or legal

acts sometimes cause more harm to others than do violent acts (Raz, 1979,

267). A legal strike by ambulance workers may well have much more severe

consequences than minor acts of vandalism. Third, violence, depending on its

form, does not necessarily obscure the communicative quality of a

disobedient's action as Rawls and Peter Singer suggests it does (Singer,

1973, 86). Limited violence used to achieve a specific objective might

heighten the communicative quality of the act by drawing greater attention to

the dissenter's cause and by emphasising her seriousness and frustration.

就算甘地與金恩那樣典範的不服從符合 Rawls 非暴力直接行動的想像，反對 Rawls 觀點

的學者也多方挑戰非暴力是否能夠作為公民不服從的核心。首先，暴力這個語彙的意思很

難精確解釋。例如下述問題的答案並不清楚：對於自己的暴力應該算作暴力嗎？對於財產

呢？對於他人的輕微暴力傷害 (例如惡意捏掐) 呢？如果對於暴力的標準就像常識那樣，

無論再怎麼輕微導致傷害的原因都算作暴力，那麼上述行為都算是暴力行動了 (參見

 Morreall, 1991)。其次，某些非暴力行為或合法行為有時導致更大傷害 (Raz, 1979,

267)。相較於輕微地破壞公物，醫護人員合法的罷工可能導致更劇烈的傷害。第三，取決

於暴力的形式，暴力未必如同 Rawls 和 Peter Singer 聲稱的那樣，模糊不服從者行動

企圖溝通的品質 (Singer, 1973, 86)。意圖達成特定反對的少量暴力可能反而提昇溝通

品質，因為這可能引發大眾對於反對運動起因更大的注意、也更強調反對運動者的嚴肅與

挫折。


These observations do not alter the fact that non-violent dissent normally is

preferable to violent dissent. As Raz observes, non-violence avoids the

direct harm caused by violence, and non-violence does not encourage violence

in other situations where violence would be wrong, something which an

otherwise warranted use of violence may do. Moreover, as a matter of

prudence, non-violence does not carry the same risk of antagonising potential

allies or confirming the antipathy of opponents (Raz, 1979, 267).

Furthermore, non-violence does not distract the attention of the public, and

it probably denies authorities an excuse to use violent countermeasures

against disobedients.

這些討論並不改變這項事實：非暴力的反對運動通常比暴力更討喜。如同 Raz 的觀察：

非暴力避免暴力導致的直接傷害；於暴力作為可能錯誤的情況，非暴力行動並未繼續煽動

暴力，而暴力行動卻保證錯誤暴力發生。再者，慮及精明層面，非暴力能夠避免擔負這樣

的風險：遭致潛在同盟的反對、抑或堅定反對敵手的憎恨 (Raz, 1979, 267)。更重要的

是，非暴力還能夠避免轉移大眾的注意，也反駁了當權者運用暴力手段攻擊不服從者的藉

口。


Non-violence, publicity and a willingness to accept punishment are often

regarded as marks of disobedients' fidelity to the legal system in which they

carry out their protest. Those who deny that these features are definitive of

civil disobedience endorse a more inclusive conception according to which

civil disobedience involves a conscientious and communicative breach of law

designed to demonstrate condemnation of a law or policy and to contribute to

a change in that law or policy. Such a conception allows that civil

disobedience can be violent, partially covert, and revolutionary. This

conception also accommodates vagaries in the practice and justifiability of

civil disobedience for different political contexts: it grants that the

appropriate model of how civil disobedience works in a context such as

apartheid South Africa may differ from the model that applies to a

well-ordered, liberal, just democracy. An even broader conception of civil

disobedience would draw no clear boundaries between civil disobedience and

other forms of protest such as conscientious objection, forcible resistance,

and revolutionary action. A disadvantage of this last conception is that it

blurs the lines between these different types of protest and so might both

weaken claims about the defensibility of civil disobedience and invite

authorities and opponents of civil disobedience to lump all illegal protest

under one umbrella.

非暴力、公開、以及願意接受懲罰通常被視作不服從者信賴司法系統的指標：因為這個司

法系統允許他們能夠實現這項抗議。否定這些要素是公民不服從明確要素的思想家則只主

張更核心的概念：良善與溝通的違法；不服從者設計這些違法以展現對於法律或政策的譴

責、以及試圖改變這些法律或政策。這樣的概念允許公民不服從可能是暴力的、部份隱瞞

的、甚至革命的。這樣的概念允許公民不服從於實務上變得詭譎難測，其證立也依賴著不

同的政治脈絡：於南非種族隔離政策的脈絡，進行公民不服從的適當方式就迥異於良序、

自由、且正義的民主社會。對於公民不服從更廣泛的概念對於公民不服從和其他抗爭形式

─諸如不合作運動、武裝抗爭、以及革命運動─的劃界可能更模糊。最後這種概念劃界的

壞處在於：這樣的模糊可能削弱了公民不服從的正當性，也招致當權者與反對敵手將公民

不服從與其他違法抗爭視作同路。



1.2 Ordinary Offences

1.2 常俗違法


In democratic societies, civil disobedience as such is not a crime. If a

disobedient is punished by the law, it is not for civil disobedience, but for

the recognised offences she commits, such as blocking a road or disturbing

the peace, or trespassing, or damaging property, etc. Therefore, if judges

are persuaded, as they sometimes are, either not to punish a disobedient or

to punish her differently from other people who breach the same laws, it must

be on the basis of some feature or features of her action which distinguish

it from the acts of ordinary offenders.

於民主社會，公民不服從這些運動並非罪愆。如果某位不服從者遭受法律懲罰，那也並非

針對公民不服從，而是針對那些他從事的違法，諸如堵塞道路、攪亂和平、侵入、抑或傷

害財產等等。因此，如果法官被說服了─他們偶爾被這樣說服─他們抑或對於不服從者不

採取懲罰，抑或採取別於其他違反相同法律者的懲罰，這必定是基於不服從者行動的要素

別於常俗違法者。


Typically a person who commits an offence has no wish to communicate with her

government or society. This is evinced by the fact that usually an offender

does not intend to make it known that she has breached the law. Since, in

most cases, she wishes to benefit or, at least, not to suffer from her

unlawful action, it is in her interests to preserve the secrecy of her

conduct. An exception might be where a person's breach is sufficiently minor,

such as jaywalking, that concealment is unnecessary since sanction is

unlikely to follow. Another exception might be where a person wishes to thumb

her nose at authorities by advertising that she has committed a crime. By

making an exception of herself and by distancing herself from a legal rule,

this ordinary offender communicates a certain disregard for the law. This

communication, however, does not normally reflect an aim either to

demonstrate conscientiously held objections to that law or to lead society to

reform the law. Civil disobedients, by contrast, seek to make their

disobedience known to specific members of the community either before or

after the fact to demonstrate both the seriousness of their condemnation of

that law or policy and their sincere desire for policy change. The difference

in communication between the civil disobedient and the ordinary offender

reflects a deeper difference in motivation for breaching the law (Brownlee,

2012).

典型的違法者並不希望溝通於政府與社會；佐證就是違法者通常不願意他們違法的行為公

諸於世。於大部分的案例，由於違法者希望受益於、至少希望避免受苦於他們的不法行動

，所以出於利害考量保密他們的舉止。例外可能是橫越馬路這種相當微弱的違法，沒什麼

必要揭發，也不太可能引發什麼制裁。另個例外可能是違法者希望藉由廣告其犯行嘲弄當

局。藉由展現自己是個不受法律規制的例外，這個常俗違法者清楚傳達了輕蔑法律的訊息

。然而，這份訊息傳達並非反映著下述目標：對於那項法律抱持反對立場的良善展現、抑

或引領著社會改革那項法律。相反地，或早或晚，公民不服從企盼他們的不服從行動見諸

社群的特定成員，他們將當嚴肅表示對於法律或政策的譴責、以及對於政策改變的渴望。

這項於傳達訴求的差異標誌著常俗違法與公民不服從的區別，也深刻反映著兩者違反法律

的動機相去甚遠 (Brownlee, 2012).。


A further difference between civil disobedience and common crimes pertains to

the willingness of the offender to accept the legal consequences. The

willingness of disobedients to accept punishment is taken not only as a mark

of (general) fidelity to the law, but also as an assertion that they differ

from ordinary offenders. Accepting punishment also can have great strategic

value, as Martin Luther King Jr observes: ‘If you confront a man who has

been cruelly misusing you, and say “Punish me, if you will; I do not deserve

it, but I will accept it, so that the world will know I am right and you are

wrong,” then you wield a powerful and just weapon.’ (Washington, 1991,

348). Moreover, like non-violence, a willingness to accept the legal

consequences normally is preferable, and often has a positive impact on the

disobedient's cause. This willingness may make the majority realise that what

is for them a matter of indifference is for disobedients a matter of great

importance (Singer, 1973, 84). Similarly, it may demonstrate the purity or

selflessness of the disobedient's motives or serve as a means to mobilise

more broad-based support (Raz, 1979, 265). And yet, punishment can also be

detrimental to dissenters' efforts by compromising future attempts to assist

others through protest (Greenawalt, 1987, 239). Furthermore, the link between

a willingness to accept punishment and respect for law can be pulled apart. A

revolutionary like Gandhi was happy to go to jail for his offences, but felt

no fidelity toward the particular legal system in which he acted.

公民不服從和常俗罪犯更重要的區別在於違法者是否願意接受法律結果。不服從者願意接

受懲罰，不只因為這代表他們尚且 (基本上) 信賴法律，也肯定了他們異於俗常違法者。

接受懲罰也可以產生巨大的戰略價值，例如金恩的研究表示「如果你面對經常殘暴虐待你

的人說『你想就懲罰我啊；我不應當遭受這項懲罰，不過我會接受這項懲罰，這樣全世界

就會知道我對你錯』，那麼，你就揮舞著強力且正義的武器。」(Washington, 1991,

348) 再者，如同非暴力，遵守規範地接受法律結果的意願也比較討喜，對於不服從的起

因也通常產生比較正面的影響。這份意願通常促使大眾理解：對於不服從者們而言，大眾

冷漠忽視的事物竟然如此意義重大 (Singer, 1973, 84)。類似的，這展現者不服從者動

機的純正無私，也能夠當作動員廣泛支持者的手段 (Raz, 1979, 265)。然而，懲罰也可

能損耗反對者未來試圖藉由抗議援助他人的努力 (Greenawalt, 1987, 239)。更糟的是，

接受懲罰的意願與尊重法律的這份連結可能消磨殆盡。革命者如甘地可能願意因為其違法

坐牢，卻也喪失對於所處司法系統的信賴。



1.3 Other Types of Dissent

1.3 反對運動的其他類型


Although civil disobedience often overlaps broadly with other types of

dissent, nevertheless some rough distinctions may be drawn between the key

features of civil disobedience and the key features of these other practices.

儘管公民不服從通常廣泛重疊於反對運動的其他類型，然而我們還是可以藉由兩者的關鍵

要素劃分粗略的區別。

Legal Protest: The obvious difference between legal protest and civil

disobedience is that the former lies within the bounds of the law, but the

latter does not. Most of the other features exemplified in civil disobedience

can be found in legal protest including a conscientious and communicative

demonstration of protest, a desire to bring about through moral dialogue some

lasting change in policy or principle, an attempt to educate and to raise

awareness, and so on. The difference in legality translates into a more

significant, moral difference when placed against the backdrop of a general

moral obligation to follow the law. If it is morally wrong to breach the law,

then special justification is required for civil disobedience which is not

required for legal protest. However, the political regime in which obedience

is demanded may be relevant here. David Lyons maintains that the Jim Crow

laws (racial segregation laws in force in the southern US until 1964),

British colonial rule in India, and chattel slavery in antebellum America

offer three refutations of the view that civil disobedience requires moral

justification in morally objectionable regimes. According to Lyons, there can

be no moral presumption in favour of obedience to the law in such regimes,

and therefore no moral justification is required for civil disobedience. ‘

Insofar as civil disobedience theory assumes that political resistance

requires moral justification even in settings that are morally comparable to

Jim Crow,’ says Lyons, ‘it is premised on serious moral error.’ (Lyons,

1998, 39). If one takes the view that there is no general moral obligation to

follow the law (irrespective of regime), then both adherence to the law and

breach of law must be judged not on their legality, but on their character

and consequences. And this would mean that, even in morally reprehensible

regimes, justification may be demanded for civil disobedience that either has

significant negative consequences or falls below certain moral standards.

合法抗議：合法抗議與公民不服從的明顯區別就是：前者處於法律允許的範圍，而後者相

反。合法抗議包含大部分公民不服從的其他要素，諸如良善與溝通的抗議示威、渴望藉由

道德對談實現政治原則的長遠改變、試圖教育並且引發覺知等等。這份合法性的差異於下

述背景條件轉變作顯著的道德差異：我們通常相信有義務遵守法律。如果違反法律是道德

上錯的，公民不服從就需要特殊的證立─而這是合法抗議無須提供的。然而，實施不服從

所處的政權也可能是個相關因素。David Lyons 主張吉姆克勞法 (1964 年以前於美國南

部實施的種族隔離法)、英國於印度實施的殖民法、以及內戰前的奴隸制度就是供三項例

證，支持公民不服從於道德上值得反對的政權無須任何道德證立。根據 Lyons，我們無法

預設服從那種政權的法律是道德的，因此公民不服從就無須任何道德證立。Lyons 說：「

如果於道德程度可比吉姆克勞法的背景，公民不服從的理論還假設政治抵抗需要道德證立

，這項推論基於嚴重的道德錯誤。」(Lyons, 1998, 39)  如果某人主張沒有任何道德義

務遵守法律 (對於政權的蔑視) ，那麼無論擁護抑或違反法律的判斷就非取決於行動的合

法性，而是它們的特徵與結果。這也表示著：即使處於道德上值得譴責的政權，如果這份

公民不服從產生顯著的負面結果、抑或並未滿足特定的道德標準，這份不服從還是必須提

供證立。


Although questions of justification will be addressed more fully in the next

section, it is worth noting here one point in favour of civil disobedience

over legal protest. As Bertrand Russell observes, typically it is difficult

to make the most salient facts in a dispute known through conventional

channels of participation. The controllers of mainstream media tend to give

defenders of unpopular views limited space to make their case. Given the

sensational news value of illegal methods, however, engaging in civil

disobedience often leads to wide dissemination of a position (Russell, 1998,

635). John Stuart Mill observes, with regard to dissent in general, that

sometimes the only way to make a view heard is to allow, or even to invite,

society to ridicule and sensationalise it as intemperate and irrational

(Mill, 1999). Admittedly, the success of this strategy depends partly on the

character of the society in which it is employed; but it should not be ruled

out as a strategy for communication.

儘管證立的問題於下個區塊將當充分討論，在這裡還是值得討論公民不服從更勝合法抗議

的某個重點。如同 Bertrand Russell 的觀察，藉由傳統管道，通常很難使得爭論中的重

要事實廣為人知。主流媒體的控制者傾向於給予不受歡迎的那些觀點相當侷限的空間發表

意見。然而，公民不服從因為違法手段引發社會震撼的新聞價值經常導致其立場被廣為傳

播 (Russell, 1998, 635)。John Stuart Mill 也提及：考慮通常的反對運動，有時候促

使某個觀點被注意的唯一作法就是允許、抑或邀請社會嘲笑那個觀點，甚至還必須嘩眾取

寵，引發大眾批評這個觀點的輕率與不合理 (Mill, 1999)。我們必須承認這種策略的成

功部份取決於社會的特徵，然而這也不應該被排除於溝通策略之外。


Rule Departures: A practice distinct from, but related to, civil disobedience

is rule departure on the part of authorities. Rule departure is essentially

the deliberate decision by an official, for conscientious reasons, not to

discharge the duties of her office (Feinberg, 1979). It may involve a

decision by police not to arrest offenders (cf. Smith, 2012) or a decision by

prosecutors not to proceed to trial, or a decision by a jury or by a judge to

acquit an obviously guilty person. Whether these conscientious acts actually

contravene the general duties of the office is debatable. If an official's

breach of a specific duty is more in keeping with the spirit and overall aims

of the office than a painstaking respect for its particular duties is, then

the former might be said to adhere better than the latter does to the demands

of the office (Greenawalt, 1987, 281)

脫離規制：脫離規制部份依賴於權威，這也是這個作法如何別於、卻又關於公民不服從。

脫離規制的本質是某位公務人員的故意決定，因著良善的理由，拒絕實現其公務職責

 (Feinberg, 1979)。這可能包括警察決定不逮捕某些違法者 (比較 Smith, 2012)、抑或

某位檢察官拒絕起訴、抑或某位法官赦免某位明顯犯罪的人。這些良善行動是否確實違法

其公務的通常職責？眾說紛紜。如果某位公務人員違反特定職責遠較孜孜矻矻於實務更能

夠保持這份公務的精神與整體目標，那麼前者可能就遠較後者能夠符合人們對於這份公務

的要求。


Rule departures resemble civil disobedience in that both involve dissociation

from and condemnation of certain policies and practices. Moreover, both are

communicative, though their audiences may differ. The official who departs

from the rules of her office addresses her action principally to the

individuals or groups whom she intends to assist through her breach of a

specific duty. Her action demonstrates to these parties both that she

disagrees with a policy that would treat them in a certain way and that her

actions align with her commitments. Where civil disobedience and rule

departure differ is, first, in the identity of their practitioners. Whereas

rule departure typically is an action taken by an agent of the state

(including juries), civil disobedience typically is an action taken by

citizens (including officials acting as ordinary citizens and not in the

capacity of their official role). Second these practices differ in their

legality. Whether rule departure actually involves a breach of law is

unclear. Civil disobedience, by contrast, involves the breach of a law

currently on the books. A third difference between rule departure and civil

disobedience is that, unlike civil disobedience, rule departure does not

usually expose those who employ it to the risks of sanction or punishment

(Feinberg, 1979)

脫離規制類似於公民不服從，都是對於特定政策與實務的斷裂與譴責。此外，兩者都注重

溝通，儘管他們的聽眾可能不同。脫離規制的公務人員其行動原則上表達訴求的對象是其

違反職責所試圖協助的個人或團體。這項行動向這些團體表示：這位公務人員反對那些針

對這些團體的特定政策，也表示這位公務人員的行動出於他的肯認。公民不服從異於脫離

規制的部份在於：首先，實行者不同─脫離規制的實行者通常是隸屬國家的行為者 (包括

法官)，公民不服從的實行者通常是公民 (包括那些以普通公民身份行動、脫離公務職位

權限的公務人員)；其次，合法性不同─脫離規制究竟是否違反不太清楚，相反地，公民

不服從牽涉著違反現行明文法律；第三，不像公民不服從，脫離規制的實行者通常不暴露

於制裁與懲罰的風險。


Conscientious Objection: This kind of protest may be understood as a

violation of the law motivated by the dissenter's belief that she is morally

prohibited to follow the law because the law is either bad or wrong, totally

or in part. The conscientious objector may believe, for example, that the

general character of the law in question is morally wrong (as an absolute

pacifist would believe of conscription), or that the law extends to certain

cases which it should not cover (an orthodox Christian would regard

euthanasia as murder) (Raz, 1979, 263). While commonly taken to refer to

pacifist objections to military service, conscientious objection, says Raz,

may apply to any law, negative or positive, that a person believes for moral

reasons she is compelled to disobey. A narrower conception of conscientious

objection, described as conscientious refusal, characterises this kind of

disobedience as non-compliance with a more or less direct legal injunction or

administrative order (Rawls, 1971, 368). Examples would be the refusal of

Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag or Thoreau's refusal to pay his taxes

(it is interesting that the action of the man who coined the term ‘civil

disobedience’ is regarded by many as lying at the periphery of what counts

as civil disobedience). Whereas conscientious refusal is undertaken with the

assumption that authorities are aware of the breach of law, conscientious

evasion is undertaken with the assumption that the breach of law is wholly

covert. The devout person who continues to practice her religion in secret

after it has been banned does not protest against the law, but breaches it

covertly for moral reasons. The personal nature of this disobedience commands

respect, as it suggests modesty and reflection, which more vocal and

confident displays of conviction may lack.

不合作運動：我們可以這樣理解不合作運動—由於全部抑或部份法律太差或錯誤，反對者

的道德禁止他們遵守這種法律，也促成其違反法律的動機。例如，不合作運動者可能相信

這些法律的基礎特徵是道德上錯誤的 (如同絕對的和平主義者相信徵召是錯誤的)，抑或

法律超過其應該適用的範圍 (正統基督教徒可能視安樂死作謀殺) (Raz, 1979, 263)。

Raz 說，儘管不合作運動通常指和平主義者拒絕服役，不合作運動可以負面或正面地適用

於任何法律，只要運動者相信存在道德理由強制他們不服從。狹義概念的不合作運動被描

繪作良善的拒絕，這種不服從的特徵是或多或少拒絕屈服於直接的法令或政令 (Rawls,

1971, 368)。例如耶和華見證會拒絕向國旗致敬、抑或 Thoreau 拒絕繳稅 (有趣的是這

個創建「公民不服從」詞彙的男人於許多人的觀點不太算作行使公民不服從)。然而不合

作運動的實施預設著當權者知道運動者違法，不合作逃兵的實施卻預設其違法完全隱瞞。

長期被禁止秘密履行其宗教的虔誠信徒並未抗議法律，只是基於道德理由偷偷違法。這份

不服從的個人天性值得尊敬，因為它提供溫和與反思，喧鬧與自信地展示那些信條的人們

反而可能缺乏這些反思。


The differences between civil disobedience and conscientious evasion are

easier to identify than those between civil disobedience and conscientious

refusal or conscientious objection. Although conscientious objection

typically is not characterised by the aim to communicate to government and

society either that a law has been breached or the reasons behind the breach,

nevertheless many acts commonly classified as conscientious objection – tax

avoidance and resistance to conscription – have a public or communicative

component. Moreover, when such actions are taken by many people their

collective impact can approximate the kind of communicative protest

exemplified in civil disobedience.

我們能夠很輕易的指認公民不服從與不合作逃兵，區分公民不服從和良善拒絕或不合作運

動就比較困難。儘管不合作運動通常缺乏企圖向社會與政府溝通的特徵─無論溝通其違反

的法律或違法的理由，然而許多被歸類作不合作運動的行動─拒絕繳稅以及拒絕服役─通

常具備公開與溝通的成份。此外，當許多人們採取這些行動並且積蓄足夠的力量後，這些

行動就很接近公民不服從中某些溝通抗議的案例了。


A more obvious difference between civil disobedience and conscientious

objection is that, whereas the former is invariably illegal, sometimes the

latter is legal. In the context of military conscription, some legal systems

regard conscientious objection as a legitimate ground for avoiding frontline

military service.

公民不服從和不合作運動較為明顯的差異是：前者總是不合法的，後者有時候則合法。於

軍隊徵召的脈絡，某些司法系統承認不合作運動算作拒絕前往前線服役的正當基礎。


Radical Protest: Some forms of dissent such as coercive violence, organised

forcible resistance, militant action, intimidation, and terrorisation lie

further outside the realm of tolerated (or tolerable) political action than

civil disobedience does. There are reasons to avoid labelling such

disobedience (or anything else) as ‘terrorism’. Not only is the term ‘

terrorism’ inflammatory, but also it is bandied about by governments to

capture an overly broad range of actions. Whereas ‘civil disobedience’ has

developed as a positive term which many people apply to their own protests, ‘

terrorism’ is an epithet applied only to the actions of others. Given the

highly negative connotations of this term, its (philosophical) usefulness is

questionable. Less loaded notions of intimidation, terrorisation, forcible

resistance, and severe violence offer greater space for a proper analysis of

the justifiability of using such measures in political protest.

激進抗爭：某些不合作運動的形式，例如強加暴力、組織武裝抵抗、軍事行動、脅迫、以

及恐怖攻擊遠遠超出公民不服從這類尚見容許的政治行動。我們有幾個理由避免稱這些不

服從運動作「恐怖主義」。不僅是「恐怖主義」這個詞彙引人義憤，同時這個詞彙也被政

府操弄於逮捕相當廣範圍的行動。然而「公民不服從」已經發展作正面詞彙，被人們用以

描述自己的運動；「恐怖主義」則用以取笑他人的行動。這個詞彙的意涵相當負面，哲學

上的效用卻值得質疑。負擔較輕的詞彙諸如脅迫、恐怖攻擊、武裝抗爭、以及激烈暴力提

供了更佳平台以分析這些方法於政治抗爭的證立性。


While a civil disobedient does not necessarily oppose the regime in which she

acts, the militant or radical protester is deeply opposed to that regime (or

a core aspect of that regime). This protester uses modes of communication

unlikely to persuade others of the merits of her position. Her aims are more

urgent and extreme than those of the civil disobedient; she seeks rapid

change through brutal strategies of coercion and intimidation, not through

strategies of persuasion and moral appeal. And often her action includes

force or extreme violence as a key component. Given the nature of her conduct

and objectives, she is likely to try to evade the legal consequences of her

action. This is less often the case for civil disobedients.

公民不服從不必然反對其所處的政權，軍事或激進抗爭者則深切地反對政權 (或該政權的

某些核心面向)。這個抗爭者的溝通模式不太可能說服他人其立場的好處。他的目標比起

公民不服從更加猛烈與極端；他們藉由強迫或脅迫這樣殘虐的策略尋求快速改變，而非藉

由說服與訴諸道德的策略。而且通常這些行動的主要成份包括武力與極端暴力。由於這些

舉措與其抗爭對象的本質，他們可能嘗試避免其行動的法律結果；而這鮮少發生於公民不

服從。


Revolutionary Action: The difference between radical protest and

revolutionary action may be as difficult to specify as that between

revolutionary action and civil disobedience. One point of difference amongst

the three concerns the nature of the objectives. Acts of civil disobedience

often have focused and limited objectives. Acts of terrorisation or

large-scale coercive violence are typically associated with a general aim of

generating fear and insecurity while keeping any specific aims or demands

oblique. Revolutionary action is typified by a comprehensive objective to

bring about a regime change. Both acts of radical protest and acts of civil

disobedience can of course fall within a revolutionary project, and may even

coincide with each other (as they perhaps did in the sabotage strategies used

by Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress).

革命行動：激進抗爭與革命行動的區別可能就像革命行動與公民不服從的區別那樣困難。

區別的重點可能是其抗爭對象的本質：公民不服從運動的反對範圍比較集中、也比較小；

恐怖攻擊、或大規模強加暴力的行動通常致力於產生恐懼與不安全感，卻避而不談其目標

與訴求；革命行動通常被歸作全面的反對以實現政權轉移。激進抗爭與公民不服從當然都

可能導致革命計畫，也可能兩者同時發生 (如同 Nelson Mandela 與南非國會採取的破壞

策略)。


As a general practice, revolution, like radical protest, does not seek to

persuade the government to change established policies. But, unlike much

radical protest, revolutionary action may seek to persuade the society under

that government that a change in regime is required. If revolutionaries seek

to persuade the government of anything, it is that it should cease to be the

government. In India, Gandhi had some success in this project. Once the

movement became irresistible, the British left India fairly peacefully. But

Gandhi's revolutionary project may be contrasted with other revolutions such

as the French revolution, or even the South African revolution, where there

were endorsements of revolutionary terror. Large-scale resistance that

incorporates terrorisation is quite a different enterprise from the

non-violent resistance that distinguished Gandhi's protest. Since, as noted

above, people may engage in dissent for numerous reasons, acts of civil

disobedience like Gandhi's that are guided by conscientious commitments can

also be driven by revolutionary aims.

於通常的實務而言，革命就如同激進抗爭，並不試圖說服政府改變已經建立的政策。然而

，不像多數激進抗爭，革命行動通常試圖說服政府管轄的社會：政權轉移是必須的。如果

革命份子試圖說服政府什麼事情，那就是這個政府應該結束。於印度，甘地成功地實行了

這個計畫。一旦運動變得無法抵禦，英國終究放任印度回歸平靜。然而法國革命恰恰相反

，南非革命也是，最終都訴諸恐怖革命。演變成恐怖攻擊的大規模抗爭迥異於甘地的非暴

力抗爭。既然，如同上述討論，人們可能由於各種理由實現反對運動，甘地那樣被良善信

念指引的公民不服從也可能被革命意圖驅動著。


The various points of contact and overlap amongst different types of

political protest suggest that there is no one-dimensional continuum from

weak to strong dissent. There is more plausibility in the idea of a

multi-dimensional continuum of protest, which recognises the complexities in

such critical points of contrast as legality, violence, harm, communication,

motivation, and persuasiveness.

政治抗爭的不同類型彼此接觸與重疊，這暗示著他們並非處於由弱轉強的單維光譜。多向

度的抗爭光譜比較可信，因為這使我們能夠辨認這些複雜、對立的關鍵要素─合法、暴力

、傷害、溝通、動機、以及說服。

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 114.42.173.66
※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/PublicIssue/M.1398945421.A.058.html
推 withfrog:感謝你的翻譯! 先推再看
推 feaze:翻譯辛苦了，推！
推 sufferp:推薦：#1JMaoN18"自我解放"系列書.#1JMYCZ71 非暴抗爭小書
→ sufferp:魏陽被請回，可以算是"不合作運動"，幫太陽花增加士氣。
推 mindsteam:　
推 Imbufo:
推 pian0214:推，翻譯辛苦了~~
※ 編輯: Yures (114.42.169.190), 05/03/2014 02:25:07
推 kanoki:感謝翻譯