儒家價值、民主及群體平等：華人文化視角的檢視

Confucian Values, Democracy, and Intergroup Equality: An Investigation from a Chinese Cultural Perspective

本文盤點民主制度與儒家社會契合度的研究證據，檢驗是否有一套儒家社會獨有，或儒家社會的人們特別信奉的價值。並從民主制度的基本精神，透過研究證據的盤點，檢視這套價值與民主制度基本精神的契合程度。民主制度的基本精神（反映在民主態度）是透過多元觀點的採納，基於人人等值，在公平具競爭性的選舉制度下，落實社會平等。透過跨文化比較的研究，發現不同文化淵源與背景的人都可能支持人跟人之間的輩分差距或角色權力的差異，並沒有一套是儒家社會的人們獨有或儒家社會的人們特別支持的價值體系。透過檢視過往被視為是儒家價值的面向與民主態度，亦發現有些儒家價值與民主態度相違背（如父權菁英主義、家族主義、對權威的服從），但也有些被視為是儒家價值的面向與民主態度相契合（如儒家公民價值），另有些被視為是儒家價值的面向則是在民主化達到一定程度的社會，反而有助於民主態度的提升（如集體主義價值、和諧價值）。此外，研究證據亦支持民主制度有助於推動群體平等；即使在被視為強調權威服從、家族主義的華人社會，亦有相關的支持證據。在制度層面，民主制度之所以能促進群體平等，是因為選舉制度中，不同政黨的候選人可透過選舉政見吸引不同群體的支持（即選區課責），有助於提升不同群體的利益與權利。在個人層面，民主制度中個人平等權利的保障，強調意見的表達自由，可使人們接觸多元觀點，進而提升對於他人的關懷情緒，避免多數暴力。本文期許透過深入探討文化價值與民主態度，讓人們體悟民主的重要性，並從中使民主態度有更深度落實與體現的可能。

Across the six Confucian societies (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Korea), various levels of democracy were observed. Despite the blossoming economy, Singapore and China remain authoritative states, which makes some politicians (e.g., Lee Kuan Yew) argue that democracy does not fit in Confucian societies. Debates regarding this statement ensue. In this article, I adopted a cultural framework proposed by Markus and Kitayama (1994) to examine the concordance and fitness of democracy and Confucianism at the micro level. Because cultural characteristics observed in the macro level (e.g., classic books that reflect core cultural ideology) may or may not be realized in the micro level (e.g., personal values), I examined research evidence to see whether there is a set of values identified in the macro level by scholars to reflect Confucianism that is uniquely endorsed or endorsed to a larger degree by people in Confucian societies than people elsewhere. Through findings from cross-cultural studies, researchers found that different cultural origins and backgrounds may promote values typically identified with Confucianism (such as power differentials in interpersonal relations and in social roles). There was not a set of values that was uniquely supported by people in Confucian societies, nor a set of values supported to a larger degree by people in Confucian societies than by people in other societies. Through comparisons between older and younger generations, the research evidence testing whether there is a set of personal values that can stand the changes in time is mixed at best. The (or lack of) differences between generations may be due to changes in time, social roles (minor differences between caretakers and children), or the fact that traditional values are not in contradiction to modern values. Separating the effects of period, cohort, and age, the evidence remains mixed and does not attest to the uniqueness of Confucian values. Despite this, the core principles of democracy were laid out to evaluate the concordance and fitness between Confucian values and democracy. The core principles of democracy are: Ensuring equal votes in fair and competitive elections, adopting multiple viewpoints and ensuring basic rights for everyone, and rule of laws to ensure the constraints of government power. The associations between values identified to reflect Confucianism and attitudes reflecting the core principles of democracy were examined in empirical research. Researchers found that certain values (e.g., paternal meritocracy, familism, and obedience to authority) were in conflict with democratic attitudes, while others may be more fitting to democratic attitudes (e.g., Confucian civil values). In contrast, some values (e.g., collectivism, harmony) may fit democratic attitudes only when societies have already achieved certain levels of democracy. Due to the core principles of democracy, democracy should promote intergroup equality. In this article, I further explore the potential consequences of democracy, specifically whether it can promote intergroup equality. Correlational and causal evidence showed that democracy could benefit intergroup equality. Democracy can promote intergroup equality, as observed elsewhere and even in Taiwan, where paternal meritocracy, familism, and obedience to authority were believed to be mainstream values. At the system level, candidates from different parties can appeal to various groups of people by promoting distinct social policies during the election (i.e., electoral accountability). As a result, the rights and interests of different groups could be protected. On a personal level, democracy protects individual rights, allows for free speech, and exposes individuals to diverse viewpoints. As a result, people may feel other-oriented emotions (e.g., care) and avoid the violence of the majority. Through an in-depth analysis of cultural values and core principles of democracy, I hope to raise awareness of the importance of democracy and, eventually, to implement its core principles of democracy to their full potential.