1．“反抗”，对于这一行为，我给出下列描述：（1）它是人的一种行为，既不关涉动物、植物和微生物等等生命有机体活动以至无机物运动，也不关涉鬼神等等虚拟状态。（2）它是人对人的一种行为。尽管我们也谈论对自然的“反抗”、对命运的“反抗”诸如此类，我还是将其限制于人际行为，并且将2个人之间的行为设定为n个人之间以及2～n个人类集合体（如氏族、家庭、民族、阶级、国家等）之间的行为的简化模型，以便探讨。（3）它反映了一种不对称的人际关系。如果2个人处于对称关系之中，那么他们/她们之间的博弈就不是谁反抗谁，而是相互较量了，直到双方强弱异势。（4）它是弱者对强者的一种行为。在给定的情景参数和约束条件下，博弈双方在物质、能量、信息等等相关综合资源的占有和使用上的不对称，造成一方强则另一方弱（注意强弱并非恒定，而是经常变换）。反抗不是强者对弱者的一种行为，而是相反。（5）它自身呈现了一种在先行为。正是强者先行对弱者的压迫，才有弱者对强者的反抗。换句话说，反抗不是“先发制人”，而是“后发制人”。
2．必须严格区分“反抗”和“起义”、“革命”（本文不拟探讨二者语义差别，大致说来，“起义”较初级一些，而“革命”则较高级一些）之间的界限。虽然起义、革命往往来自于反抗，由反抗汇合，但二者却可以严格区分开来：（1）反抗既可以是一种个体的行为，也可以是一种群体的行为；而起义、革命则必然诉诸群体。（2）即使某些反抗可以实现某种社会动员，这种社会动员仍然是弱的；而起义、革命则必然诉诸强社会动员。（3）弱社会动员是一种自发的行为，它基于人们生存境遇的一致；而强社会动员则是自觉的，它需要某种意识形态（如“天命”、“神意”、“自然权利”和“历史规律”等合法性论证）的中介。——这是二者最根本和最重要的区分。（4）二者目的不同：反抗是关涉生存的境遇，而起义、尤其革命则指向经济、政治、文化、社会秩序。（5）二者效果不同：反抗是捍卫生存的底线，而起义、尤其革命则颠覆经济、政治、文化、社会秩序。历史证明：混淆“反抗”和“起义”、“革命”之间的界限，往往走向反面。只有人们捍卫生存的反抗才能构成某种权利，获得某种理由，而颠覆经济、政治、文化、社会秩序的起义、革命则只有在人们的生存境遇确实恶化，亟需改善时，才能构成某种权利，获得某种理由。换句话说，是否人们生存权和反抗权的正当行使，是检验起义、革命合理与否的首要标准。
3．但是，反抗并非是弱者面对强者压迫，捍卫自身生存的首要选择。人们在通常情况下往往选择容忍。情况正如莎士比亚所构造的著名“哈姆莱特问题”一样，“忍受”和“反抗”（“斗争”——其实，斗争虽包含反抗，但却不限于反抗）的根据不在别的，而在体现人的“高贵”。这里没有隐含任何“宗教”或“科学”的意识形态元素，它的根据深藏在人性的审美的光辉中。两者之间还有若干中间行为。只要附加某种意识形态元素，任何一种行为都会经过社会动员，发展成为某种社会运动。然而，理性人的行为是遵循最小代价/最大利益原则进行的。只有在常态行为（容忍）无效时，反抗这一非常态和反常态行为才有其合法性。同样，只有在体制行为（如变法、改良等）无效时，起义、革命这种非体制和反体制行为才有其合法性（其实，还有若干中间行为应当予以考虑，譬如，在合作无效时，并非一定选择暴力，还有非暴力不合作这种中间行为应当予以考虑）。于是，这里存在着一个行为合法性的词典式序列：只有在前一种行为不可能的时候和地方，后一种行为才有合法性。
4．从近代市民（资产阶级）革命起，反抗逐步成为基本人权。美国《独立宣言》在基本人权中规定了生存权：“我们认为下述真理是不言而喻的：人人生而平等，造物主赋予他们若干不可让与的权利，其中包括生存权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。”法国《人权宣言》在基本人权中更进一步规定了反抗权：“任何政治结合的目的都在于保护人的自然的和不可动摇的权利。这些权利即自由、财产、安全及反抗压迫。”反抗权与生存权相反相成，都属于基本人权。人的生存包括两个基本层面：一是他/她作为一般动物的生命具有存在和延续的权利；二是他/她作为特殊动物的人格应当得到担保。人有权利活着，并且有权利作为人活着。甚至当他/她死时，仍然有权利享受人的尊严。人格尊严表面是属于一个人的，实质是属于全人类的。因此，只要人类社会存在压迫、剥削、奴役，只要人权受到侵犯，并且忍无可忍，人们就有理由，并有权利实施反抗，以便捍卫自身生存。反抗是关涉人的生存的。这既是反抗权合法性之所在（这里不是就人为法而言，而是就自然法或理性法而言），也是它限度之所在。在现代文明社会中，绝大多数国家都承认了反抗权，将其合法化（如正当防卫等，如言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威、罢工等表现为抗议权的反抗权）。这个道理是非常显著的：当法律无法在某些时间、地点、条件下保护人们生存权时，就应当赋予人们反抗权了。但是，人们行使反抗权，不得逾越捍卫自身生存权这一底线，并且应当尽其所能履行容忍的义务和责任，否则就失去了行使权利的合法性。
5．在对待反抗权合法性问题上，各派政治哲学首先可以分为两种倾向，一是否认反抗权的合法性，如霍布斯等；二是承认反抗权的合法性，如洛克、卢梭等。这一倾向其实也有分歧（所谓英法两种自由主义争论）。其实，问题的关键是区分反抗与经过意识形态中介的社会动员的起义、革命诸如此类社会运动之间的界限，并且以前者为考量后者合法性之依据。在所有压迫形式中，公权力对私权利的压迫最甚。因此，在所有反抗形式中，私权利对公权力的反抗至要。保护私人领域，抵制公共领域侵犯，——这是反抗权（或所谓公民不服从）的要义所在。而今，反抗权及其合法性、限度问题不仅应当在社会制度安排中予以考虑，而且应当在世界制度体系安排中予以考虑。其实，在一定限度内实现反抗权合法化，是实现社会公正与和谐的一个不可或缺的要素。一种制度或制度体系安排，最高明者在于它化反抗自身的力量为巩固自身的力量。
（2007年3月5-7日，作者在中国社会科学院参加由国际跨文化研究所和中国社会科学院主办的“治与乱”[Order and Disorder]跨文化国际研讨会。这是作者3月7日下午英文演讲的中文稿件）
The right of resistance: legitimacy and limits
Cheng Guang-yun
1. "Resistance" For this, I give the following description: (1) It is an act that neither involves organisms activities such as animals, plants and microbes, etc.and inorganic life movement, nor involves in a state of virtual ghosts and so on. (2) It is an act of the people. While we are talking about the nature of the "resistance", the fate of the "resistance", and so on.. I will limit to their interpersonal behavior. And individuals between two acts will be set for n-type individuals and 2~n collectivities (such as the clan, family, nation and the state, etc.) of the simplified model to explore. (3) It reflects an asymmetry interpersonal relationship. If two individuals are in a symmetrical relationship, they will be mutual strength until one of them to be the winner instead of among the game against anybody. (4) It is a powerful act of the weak. In a given set of parameters and constraints, the asymmetry of the possession and use of comprehensive resources such as material, energy and information leads to imbalance two parts: The strong and the weak (strength is not unchangeable, but variable). Resistance is not an act of the strong against the weak, but the contrary. (5)It has a precedent act of its own. It is the oppression towards the weak that results in the resistance of the weak. In other words, the resistance is not "pre-emptive", but "reactive".
2. We must distinguish between "resistance" and "uprising", "revolution" (This article will not explore two semantic differences, broadly speaking, "uprising" somewhat junior, and the "revolution" were sort of the more senior). Although the uprising and revolution often originates from resistance, resistance from converging, but they has to be strictly clarified: (1) resistance can be both an individual's behavior and that a group of behavior; whereas uprisings, revolution inevitable resort to groups. (2) Even if some resistance can achieve some sort of social mobilization, community mobilization remains weak; And uprisings, revolution inevitable resort to strong social mobilization. (3) Weak social mobilization is a spontaneous act, which is based on the same plight of people's living; and strong social mobilization is conscious that it needs an intermediary of a certain ideology (legitimacy verification such as "the fate of heaven" and "God's will", "natural rights" and "historical law") -- This is the most fundamental and most important distinction between the two concepts. (4) They have two different purposes: the resistance is only concerned with the situation of survival, and the uprising, in particular, the revolution points at the economic, political, cultural and social order. (5) They have two different results: the resistance is the bottom line defending survival, while the uprising, in particular, the revolution subverts the economic, political, cultural and social order. History has proved that confusing the definition of "resistance" and "uprising", "revolution" often goes in the opposite direction. Only people's resistance of defending the survival can amount to some right and will have some reasonable reason. Instead the uprising, the revolution of subverting the economic, political, cultural and social order can only pose certain rights, was one reason when people's living situation is indeed worsen and need of improvement. In other words, the exercise of people's legitimate right of survival and resistance is the most important criterion to test the reasonability of uprising and revolution.
3. However, the resistance is not the first choice of the weak to defend their own survival against the strong’s oppression. In normal circumstances, people often choose intolerance. Just as Shakespeare’s well-known "Hamlet Problems", the basis of "intolerable" and "resistance" (“struggle" -- in fact, the struggle includes resistance, but not limited to resistance) is to present the “noble” rather than others. There is no implication of any "religious" or "scientific" ideological element. It is deeply rooted in the brilliant aesthetics of human nature. There are a number of intermediate between the two acts. A certain ideological element will be the result of an act of any mobilization, which develops into a social movement. However, the rational behavior follows the principle of minimum price / utmost interests. Only when normal behavior (tolerance) is futile, resistance this extraordinary behavior have its legitimacy. Similarly, only when institutional activities (such as political reform, modified, etc.) are null and void, the uprising and revolution— a system of non-institutional and anti-institutional acts has its legitimacy (in fact, there are a number of intermediate behavior to be taken into account. For example, in invalid cooperation, it is not bound to accept the violence, an intermediate act of non-violent non-cooperation should be taken into account). So, here there is a dictionary sequence of conduct legality: the latter act can have its legitimacy only under the impossibility of the former.
4. Since the bourgeois revolution, the resistance gradually becomes a basic human right. Declaration of Independence in the United States defines the existence of basic human rights: "We hold this truth to be self-evident; that all men are created equally, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and pressure of happiness.’’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in France seeks to impose the right of resistance in the basic human right: "The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural imprescriptible rights of men. These rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression." The right of resistance and the right of survival are contrary and complimentary. Both belongs to the basic human rights. The survival includes two basic levels: First, he/she has the right of existence and continuation as common lives of animals. Second, his/her personality should be secured as special animals. People have the right to live and have the right to live as human beings. Even when he/she died, he/she still has the right to enjoy human dignity. The personality belongs to individuals, but in essence the dignity belongs to the whole mankind. Therefore, as long as there is oppression, exploitation, slavery; as long as human rights are being violated, and Intolerable, people have reasons and rights to implement resistance, in order to safeguard their own survival. Resistance is concerned with people’s survival. This is the legitimacy of the right of resistance (this is not the law of man, but the law of nature or ration) as well as its limitation. In a modern civilized society, the overwhelming majority of countries has recognized the right of resistance and legalize (such as self-defense, the right of resistance which reflect right to protest such as speech, publication, assembly, association, procession, demonstration, and strike). The reason is very obvious: When law fails to protect people’s right of survival at certain time, in certain place and under certain condition, people should be given the right of resistance. However, the exercise of the right of resistance can not exceed the bottom line of defending its own right of survival and should do everything possible to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of intolerance. Otherwise they will lose the legitimacy of the exercise of their rights.
5. In terms of legitimacy of right of resistance, there are two tendencies among various schools of political philosophy. One is to deny the legitimacy of resistance, such as Hobbes; the other is to recognize the legitimacy of the resistance, such as Locke, Rousseau etc. This trend also has differences (the so-called Liberalism arguments in both English and French). In fact, the key issue is the distinction of the boundaries between resistance and uprising, revolution through social mobilization of ideological intermediaries and the basis for legitimacy of the latter under the former. Among all forms of oppression, the oppression of public power against private right is most serious. Therefore, in all forms of resistance, resistance of the private right against the public power is utmost important. Protection of the private sphere and boycott the public violations -- this is the essence of right of resistance (or the so-called civil disobedience). Now, such issues as the right of resistance and its legitimacy and limits should be considered not only in social systems, but also in systems in the world. In fact, within certain limits, to achieve the legalization of the right of resistance is an essential element to achieve social justice and harmony. As to the institutes or institutional systems, it is the wisest who put strength of resistance on its own into strength of consolidate its own.
Translated by Zhang Ke（张珂）
Revised by Yu Jiang-xia（于江霞）
