晚清学者对谏官制度反思的两种向度——以魏源与郭嵩焘为例  

Two Directional Reflection on the Admonition System in the Late Qing Dynasty:a Case Study of Wei Yuan and Guo Songtao

作　　者：龙吟 LONG Yin(School of Philosophy,Wuhan University,Wuhan 430072,Hubei,China)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学哲学学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《廉政文化研究》2024年第5期88-96,共9页Anti-corruption and Integrity Culture Studies

摘　　要：同属晚清湖湘学者的魏源、郭嵩焘,虽对谏官制度皆有所反思与批评,但二人在态度和立场上却有很大区别。魏源依托于《周礼》“古无谏官”的政治传统对后世“谏官专言”的政治现象进行批判,其目的在于打破谏官对言路的垄断,希望所有社会成员都有机会进言献策,进而防止权力腐败、权力滥用与决策失误。有别乎此,郭嵩焘虽然也认识到“谏官专言”的政治弊病,呼吁当局应当广开谏诤之路,但是基于晚清出现“议论劫持朝政”的现象,他对于民众言论政事一直秉持保守和警惕态度。魏源与郭嵩焘对谏官制度的反思呈现出了以民众限制权力和民众是否具有理性这两种截然不同的问题向度,是平民主义与精英主义政治倾向的典型表现。Wei Yuan and Guo Songtao,both scholars of Hunan in the late Qing Dynasty,reflected on and criticized the system of admonition,but they took two different paths in their attitudes and positions.The ancient Chinese political tradition of“no admonishing official”is criticized by Wei Yuan,who hopes to break the monopoly of officials on public opinion to allow all social members to have a voice to prevent corruption of public power,abuse of public power and wrong decision-making.In contrast,although Guo Songtao also recognizes the political evil of“official speech,”he calls for the authorities to broaden the avenue for policy debate,but with caution against“public opinion hijacking politics”,he is cautiously conservative toward public opinion on politics and highly alert against it.The reflection on the system of admonishment by Wei and Guo reveals two different directions of reflection:one toward the restriction of power by the people,and the other doubting the rationality of the people.This is indeed a classic example of the debate between populism and elitism.

关 键 词：谏官制度 魏源 郭嵩焘 平民主义 精英主义 

分 类 号：D691.49[政治法律—政治学]