社会治理视域下的人民调解—功能与再定位
发布时间：2018-09-09 09:47
【摘要】：作为一种承袭了传统文化、肩负国家用以治理社会功能的重要纠纷解决方式,中国的调解制度和实践在近代以来面临现代化问题挑战展现出独特的形态。国家权力的参与使得人民调解在社会治理场域中处于一种微妙的地位,它既不纯然是民间自组织的力量,也不完全依附于国家政权。因此,对人民调解制度的理解不应仅将其视作是一种普遍性的纠纷解决机制,而应当将其置于整体社会转型的纵向历史过程中、作为一个视窗来观察和理解现代性问题在中国展开过程中所面临的种种特殊问题。 除了解决纠纷,作为一种社会治理机制的人民调解还具有充当司法补充、动员民众和整合基层社会的制度功能。人民调解的其他社会治理功能是既依附于纠纷解决功能,又可独立于具体的纠纷解决过程。在调解实践中可以观察和总结出人民调解这四种制度功能之间彼此联系,相互补充；但各治理功能之间也存在相互排斥的可能。 作为同一制度的四个侧面,虽然彼此之间存在着紧密的联系,但这四种功能发挥效用的条件并不完全一致。人民调解纠纷化解功能的发挥需要以政权的支持、制度细节决定的制度能力、以及紧密的基层社会关系作为前提条件。人民调解司法补充功能的发挥则取决于国家法与民间知识规范之间是否存在距离感、以及正式司法的纠纷化解能力是否能够应对纠纷化解的需求。作为基层整合工具的人民调解,这种功能的发挥则需要以匹配政权治理结构的组织化外观以及具有相应资质的调解者作为条件。以人民调解动员基层的效用则取决于这种动员的介质是否适当、策略是否适宜。 自20世纪80年代中后期开始,人民调解作为纠纷化解机制的存在合理性日益遭到质疑,并陷入发展的危机。这种制度效用危机的背后是国家主导的渐进式改革与宏观社会结构的变迁。现实社会呼吁非诉讼的纠纷化解方式能够及时有效地处理纠纷、维护社会良序。纵向控制社会结构的解体,基层社会关系紧密的互动网络被打破并日益松散,若要更好地适应新的社会条件,重新获得展开调解所必须的资源和权威,就需要对人民调解的制度进行再设计,使得人民调解能够作为一种独立的、能够得到社会认可的纠纷化解机制而存在和运行。 而人民调解作为司法补充、尤其是在普法的实践中表现出来的困难是与基层治理结构的改变紧密相系的。城市社区改革与农村居民自治使得基层社区的治理结构更加灵活,基层治理自由程度的提高,传统的层级式管理在“自治的社区”一级面临困难。未来人民调解的司法补充功能将隐含于人民调解的纠纷解决功能中、间接实现和发挥作用。 社会流动性不断增多的现代社会,社区将毫无疑问地成为容纳和聚集社会成员的最基本的空间和场域,社区人民调解也将因此而具有显著的社会整合意义。从调解的社区实践来看,人民调解整合功能发挥不明显的重要约束因素在于基层社区改革的缺位。发挥和加强人民调解的社会整合功能需要针对性地采取系列措施,创造有利功能发挥的效用条件。 随着城市化进程的加快和现代居住格局的改变,过去人民调解发挥功能所依靠的地邻乡友、地方性知识规范等赋予其合法性和正当性的资源都在减少,动员能力随之下降。与之不相称的是,社会治安综合治理背景之下的调解所肩负的功能压力却在扩大。命令式、动员式的人民调解,可能路径是转变为“治理型的动员”,也即常态的整合模式。人民调解的动员功能应当在实现其整合功能时自然实现。 问题在于,前存的制度框架会型塑后期社会变迁的轨迹。作为社会治理机制之一的人民调解也是如此,即便其发挥原初制度功能的社会条件已经消解或弱化,但制度设计仍然倾向于沿着旧有的模式再生、延展和维持。虽然粗略看来是有效的,但实际上这种变迁并没有真正置于新式社会结构之中与之适应。现有的人民调解通过层级的提升和政权的赋权仍走在试图加强纵向整合的老路上,而如何利用调解来帮助社会实现自身的、横向的整合仍未寻见适当的进路。 对待这样一种已然存在、并且在某种程度、某些功能维度上仍在发挥作用的拥有庞大基层组织网络的社会治理机制,合乎理性的选择不是彻底废弃、而是对其进行制度再设计、使其更为契合社会发展需要。人民调解应当、并且能够在公民培养这一维度上发挥效用、获致助益社会发展的新工具价值。 通过调解促进基层社会整合主要在于调解能够通过消除个体间的私利冲突与人际关系障碍,实现公平与正义,从而更大程度地促进个体对国家及社会的认同感；并且在调解过程中能够促进自治性秩序的生发,实现对社区的整合。调解同时也能够通过隐性扩张政权规制、中立冲突性质、并经由调解协议的合同形式构建基层社会与政权之间的“弹性”联结。这种弹性联结意味着国家政权与社会间能够建构起“合作式治理”的治理模式,这种模式的理想之处在于,分离进程中的中国国家与社会将在各守其界、相互赋权的同时,仍然能够保有有效的联结；这无疑为中国治理结构和模式的转型提供了一种可供选择的思路。
[Abstract]:As an important way to solve disputes, which inherits the traditional culture and shoulders the function of the state in governing society, China's mediation system and practice have shown a unique form in the face of the challenges of modernization since modern times. Therefore, the understanding of the people's mediation system should not only be regarded as a universal dispute resolution mechanism, but also be placed in the longitudinal historical process of the overall social transformation, as a window to observe and understand the process of modernity in China. Various special problems faced by them.
In addition to resolving disputes, as a mechanism of social governance, people's mediation also has the function of serving as a judicial supplement, mobilizing the people and integrating the grassroots society. The four institutional functions of people's mediation are interrelated and complementary to each other, but there is also the possibility of mutual exclusion among the various governance functions.
As the four sides of the same system, although they are closely related to each other, the conditions for these four functions to play their role are not entirely the same. People's mediation needs the support of the political power, the institutional ability to determine the details of the system, and the close social relations at the grass-roots level as the prerequisites for the function of dispute resolution. The function of judicial supplement depends on whether there is a sense of distance between national law and folk knowledge norms, and whether the ability of formal judicial dispute resolution can meet the needs of dispute resolution. The effectiveness of mobilizing people's mediation at the grass-roots level depends on whether the mobilization medium is appropriate and the strategy is appropriate.
Since the mid and late 1980s, the rationality of people's mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism has been increasingly questioned, and has fallen into a crisis of development. Behind this crisis is the gradual reform led by the state and the change of macro social structure. Dealing with disputes and maintaining good social order.Longitudinally controlling the disintegration of social structure and the close interactive network of grass-roots social relations are broken and loosened.If we want to better adapt to the new social conditions and regain the necessary resources and authority for mediation,we need to redesign the system of people's mediation so that people's mediation can be done. It exists and runs for an independent dispute resolution mechanism that can be recognized by the society.
As a judicial supplement, the difficulties of people's mediation, especially in the practice of law popularization, are closely related to the change of grass-roots governance structure.The reform of urban communities and the autonomy of rural residents make the governance structure of grass-roots communities more flexible, the freedom of grass-roots governance improved, and the traditional hierarchical management in "autonomous communities". In the future, the judicial supplementary function of the people's mediation will be implied in the dispute resolution function of the people's mediation, which will indirectly realize and play a role.
In the modern society with increasing social mobility, the community will undoubtedly become the most basic space and field to accommodate and gather social members, and the community people's mediation will therefore have significant social integration significance. The absence of the reform of the hierarchical community and the need to take a series of measures to bring into play and strengthen the social integration function of the people's mediation to create favorable conditions for the function to play.
With the acceleration of urbanization and the change of modern residential pattern, the resources endowed with legitimacy and legitimacy, such as neighbors and townsmen, local knowledge norms and so on, which the people relied on for mediation in the past, have been reduced, and the mobilization capacity has been reduced. Imperative and mobilized people's mediation may be transformed into "governance-based mobilization", that is, normal integration mode. The mobilization function of people's mediation should be realized naturally when its integration function is realized.
The problem is that the existing institutional framework will shape the trajectory of social change in the later period. The same is true of people's mediation as one of the social governance mechanisms. Even though the social conditions for its original institutional functions have been eliminated or weakened, the institutional design still tends to regenerate, extend and maintain along the old model. Effective, but in fact, this change has not really been placed in the new social structure to adapt to it. The existing people's mediation through the promotion of hierarchy and the empowerment of political power is still on the old road of trying to strengthen vertical integration, and how to use mediation to help society to achieve its own, horizontal integration has not yet found the appropriate way.
People's mediation should be, and can be, citizen's mediation. To foster effectiveness in this dimension, we can gain the value of new tools to help social development.
Through mediation to promote social integration at the grass-roots level mainly lies in mediation to achieve fairness and justice by eliminating personal conflicts and barriers to interpersonal relations between individuals, thus to a greater extent to promote individual recognition of the state and society; and in the process of mediation to promote the emergence of autonomous order, to achieve community integration. At the same time, the flexible connection between the grass-roots society and the political power can be constructed by implicitly expanding the regime regulation, neutralizing the nature of conflict, and by means of the contract form of mediation agreement. In the process, China's state and society will stick to their boundaries and empower each other while still maintaining effective links, which undoubtedly provides an alternative way of thinking for the transformation of China's governance structure and model.
【学位授予单位】：南开大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D926
本文编号：2232028
[Abstract]:As an important way to solve disputes, which inherits the traditional culture and shoulders the function of the state in governing society, China's mediation system and practice have shown a unique form in the face of the challenges of modernization since modern times. Therefore, the understanding of the people's mediation system should not only be regarded as a universal dispute resolution mechanism, but also be placed in the longitudinal historical process of the overall social transformation, as a window to observe and understand the process of modernity in China. Various special problems faced by them.
In addition to resolving disputes, as a mechanism of social governance, people's mediation also has the function of serving as a judicial supplement, mobilizing the people and integrating the grassroots society. The four institutional functions of people's mediation are interrelated and complementary to each other, but there is also the possibility of mutual exclusion among the various governance functions.
As the four sides of the same system, although they are closely related to each other, the conditions for these four functions to play their role are not entirely the same. People's mediation needs the support of the political power, the institutional ability to determine the details of the system, and the close social relations at the grass-roots level as the prerequisites for the function of dispute resolution. The function of judicial supplement depends on whether there is a sense of distance between national law and folk knowledge norms, and whether the ability of formal judicial dispute resolution can meet the needs of dispute resolution. The effectiveness of mobilizing people's mediation at the grass-roots level depends on whether the mobilization medium is appropriate and the strategy is appropriate.
Since the mid and late 1980s, the rationality of people's mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism has been increasingly questioned, and has fallen into a crisis of development. Behind this crisis is the gradual reform led by the state and the change of macro social structure. Dealing with disputes and maintaining good social order.Longitudinally controlling the disintegration of social structure and the close interactive network of grass-roots social relations are broken and loosened.If we want to better adapt to the new social conditions and regain the necessary resources and authority for mediation,we need to redesign the system of people's mediation so that people's mediation can be done. It exists and runs for an independent dispute resolution mechanism that can be recognized by the society.
As a judicial supplement, the difficulties of people's mediation, especially in the practice of law popularization, are closely related to the change of grass-roots governance structure.The reform of urban communities and the autonomy of rural residents make the governance structure of grass-roots communities more flexible, the freedom of grass-roots governance improved, and the traditional hierarchical management in "autonomous communities". In the future, the judicial supplementary function of the people's mediation will be implied in the dispute resolution function of the people's mediation, which will indirectly realize and play a role.
In the modern society with increasing social mobility, the community will undoubtedly become the most basic space and field to accommodate and gather social members, and the community people's mediation will therefore have significant social integration significance. The absence of the reform of the hierarchical community and the need to take a series of measures to bring into play and strengthen the social integration function of the people's mediation to create favorable conditions for the function to play.
With the acceleration of urbanization and the change of modern residential pattern, the resources endowed with legitimacy and legitimacy, such as neighbors and townsmen, local knowledge norms and so on, which the people relied on for mediation in the past, have been reduced, and the mobilization capacity has been reduced. Imperative and mobilized people's mediation may be transformed into "governance-based mobilization", that is, normal integration mode. The mobilization function of people's mediation should be realized naturally when its integration function is realized.
The problem is that the existing institutional framework will shape the trajectory of social change in the later period. The same is true of people's mediation as one of the social governance mechanisms. Even though the social conditions for its original institutional functions have been eliminated or weakened, the institutional design still tends to regenerate, extend and maintain along the old model. Effective, but in fact, this change has not really been placed in the new social structure to adapt to it. The existing people's mediation through the promotion of hierarchy and the empowerment of political power is still on the old road of trying to strengthen vertical integration, and how to use mediation to help society to achieve its own, horizontal integration has not yet found the appropriate way.
People's mediation should be, and can be, citizen's mediation. To foster effectiveness in this dimension, we can gain the value of new tools to help social development.
Through mediation to promote social integration at the grass-roots level mainly lies in mediation to achieve fairness and justice by eliminating personal conflicts and barriers to interpersonal relations between individuals, thus to a greater extent to promote individual recognition of the state and society; and in the process of mediation to promote the emergence of autonomous order, to achieve community integration. At the same time, the flexible connection between the grass-roots society and the political power can be constructed by implicitly expanding the regime regulation, neutralizing the nature of conflict, and by means of the contract form of mediation agreement. In the process, China's state and society will stick to their boundaries and empower each other while still maintaining effective links, which undoubtedly provides an alternative way of thinking for the transformation of China's governance structure and model.
【学位授予单位】：南开大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D926
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 杨柳;;模糊的法律产品——对两起基层法院调解案件的考察[J];北大法律评论;1999年01期
2 强世功;;权力的组织网络与法律的治理化——马锡五审判方式与中国法律的新传统[J];北大法律评论;2000年02期
3 王汉生;;中国城市的调解制度及运作方式[J];北京工业大学学报(社会科学版);2007年02期
4 连宏;儒家的和谐观与中国传统调解制度[J];长春理工大学学报(社会科学版);2005年02期
5 张青国;;法团主义视角下中国国家与社会关系模式的调整与建构[J];重庆社会科学;2006年01期
6 田先红;;乡镇司法所纠纷解决机制的变化及其原因探析[J];当代法学;2010年05期
7 何兵;论民间调解组织之重构[J];中国司法;2004年02期
8 ;人民调解参与构建大调解工作体系的现状、定位与选择[J];中国司法;2007年10期
9 荣长海,孙月玲;论社会主义初级阶段民本和民主的价值取向[J];道德与文明;2002年03期
10 田琳琳;;建立行政调解机制的必要性分析[J];大连干部学刊;2009年11期
，本文编号：2232028
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/gongjianfalunwen/2232028.html
