社會契約理論 Social Contract Theory

社會契約理論 Social Contract Theory

● 字源

Social 來自拉丁文 socialis（同伴的），源於 socius（夥伴）。Contract 來自古法文 contract，源於拉丁文 contractus（締結、收縮），是動詞 contrahere 的過去分詞，由 con-（一起）加 trahere（拉、牽引）構成，原指把雙方「拉在一起」立下約定。Theory 來自希臘文 theoria（觀看、沉思），源於 theoros（觀察者），再追溯到 theaomai（注視）。同源詞有 contract、attract、extract、abstract、trace（以上出自 trahere），以及 theater、theorem（以上出自 theoria）。這個詞組由霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）、洛克（John Locke）、盧梭（Jean-Jacques Rousseau）等人發展，主張政府與法律的正當性來自人民為了安全與秩序而同意讓渡部分自由。中文譯為「社會契約理論」，是不可數名詞。

● 例句（90字長句）

Social contract theory, which philosophers define as the doctrine by which political authority is justified through the consent of the governed, holds not that rulers receive their power from heaven but that individuals, fearing that life without government would be violent and insecure, agree to surrender some freedoms to a sovereign whom they themselves authorize, so that citizens who obey laws they never personally wrote still regard those laws as legitimate, although critics, whom every theorist of consent troubles, object that the contract that supposedly binds everyone was never actually signed by anyone.

● 排列為比較容易閱讀的方式

Social contract theory,

which philosophers define as the doctrine

by which political authority is justified through the consent of the governed,

holds

not that rulers receive their power from heaven

but that individuals,

fearing that life without government would be violent and insecure,

agree to surrender some freedoms

to a sovereign

whom they themselves authorize,

so that citizens who obey laws they never personally wrote

still regard those laws as legitimate,

although critics,

whom every theorist of consent troubles,

object

that the contract that supposedly binds everyone was never actually signed by anyone.

● 分解為原初的短小句

Social contract theory holds something.

（全句主幹：主詞 social contract theory，謂語 holds；後面的 not that ... but that ... 是 holds 的兩個並列受詞子句，說明理論主張什麼。）

Philosophers define social contract theory as the doctrine.

（which 為非限定關係代名詞，指 theory，在子句中作 define 的受詞；define A as B 表「將 A 定義為 B」；doctrine 指學說。）

Political authority is justified through the consent of the governed by the doctrine.

（by which 為「介系詞＋關係代名詞」，which 指 doctrine，還原後為 by the doctrine；is justified 為被動語態；the governed 為「the + 過去分詞」，表「被統治者」。）

Rulers receive their power from heaven.

（not that 所否定的主張；此處 that 為連接詞，引導 holds 的受詞子句；heaven 指上天，即君權神授。）

Individuals agree to surrender some freedoms to a sovereign.

（but that 引導肯定的主張，為 holds 的第二個受詞子句；agree to + 原形動詞表「同意去做」；surrender A to B 表「將 A 讓渡給 B」。）

Individuals fear something.

（fearing that ... 為現在分詞構句，主詞同為 individuals，相當於 as they fear that ...，表「同時具備的心理」。）

Life without government would be violent and insecure.

（that 子句為 fear 的受詞；that 為連接詞，不擔任子句成分；would 表假設語氣；violent 與 insecure 為並列的主詞補語。）

Individuals themselves authorize the sovereign.

（whom 為限定關係代名詞，指 sovereign，在子句中作 authorize 的受詞，故用受格 whom，還原後 sovereign 置於句尾；themselves 為強調用的反身代名詞，強調正是人民自己授權。）

Citizens still regard those laws as legitimate.

（so that 引導結果子句，表「以致」；regard A as B 表「視 A 為 B」；legitimate 指正當的。）

Citizens obey laws.

（who 為限定關係代名詞，指 citizens，在子句中作主詞，所以 who 後面直接接動詞 obey。）

Citizens never personally wrote the laws.

（laws 後省略了受格關係代名詞 that，完整為 laws that they never personally wrote，that 指 laws，在子句中作 wrote 的受詞；never personally 為副詞，表「從未親自」。）

Critics object something.

（although 引導讓步副詞子句；object that ... 的 that 子句為 object 的內容。）

Every theorist of consent troubles critics.

（whom 為非限定關係代名詞，指 critics，在子句中作 troubles 的受詞，故用受格 whom；every theorist of consent 為單數主詞，動詞用 troubles。）

The contract was never actually signed by anyone.

（that 子句的主幹；was signed 為被動語態；never actually 表「從未真正」；by anyone 為動作者。）

The contract supposedly binds everyone.

（第二個 that 為限定關係代名詞，指 contract，在子句中作主詞，所以 that 後面直接接動詞 binds；supposedly 為副詞，表「據稱」，帶有質疑口吻。）

● 文法解析

非限定 which 子句與 by which：

Social contract theory, which ... the governed, holds 先以 which 子句補充定義，再以 holds 交代主幹。子句內的 by which political authority is justified ... 是「介系詞＋關係代名詞」結構，意思是「政治權威藉以獲得正當性的學說」，which 指 doctrine，不是指 theory，閱讀時要把兩層 which 分清楚。

not that ... but that ... 與現在分詞構句 fearing：

這裡與前幾題的 not because ... but because ... 不同，否定與肯定的是 holds 的兩個受詞子句：先否定君權神授，再提出理論真正的主張。but that 之後，主詞 individuals 與謂語 agree 之間插入 fearing that life without government would be violent and insecure，交代人們「害怕」無政府的暴力與不安，這就是讓渡自由的動機。兩個 that 都是連接詞，不擔任子句成分。

限定 whom 與介系詞片語 to a sovereign：

agree to surrender some freedoms to a sovereign whom they themselves authorize 中，whom 指 sovereign，並且是 authorize 的受詞，所以 authorize 後面不再接受詞。這是限定（不加逗號）關係子句，限定「哪一種」主權者：由人民自己授權的那一位。themselves 強調授權者正是人民。

so that 結果子句、限定 who 與省略的關係代名詞：

so that citizens who obey laws they never personally wrote still regard those laws as legitimate 以 so that 表結果。who obey laws ... 是限定子句，who 作子句主詞，限定「哪一種」公民。laws they never personally wrote 省略了關係代名詞 that，還原為 laws that they never personally wrote，that 是 wrote 的受詞。

although 讓步子句、非限定 whom 與雙重 that：

although critics ... object 引出轉折：理論雖然解釋了正當性，批評者仍質疑契約從未真正存在。whom every theorist of consent troubles 是非限定關係子句，whom 在子句中作 troubles 的受詞，主詞 every theorist of consent 置於 whom 之後，是受格關係子句的典型語序。最後 object that the contract that supposedly binds everyone ... 出現兩個 that：第一個是引導名詞子句的連接詞，第二個是限定關係代名詞，在子句中作 binds 的主詞。

● 參考翻譯

社會契約理論（哲學家將它定義為政治權威藉以透過被統治者的同意而獲得正當性的學說）所主張的，並非統治者從上天接受權力，而是個人（害怕沒有政府的生活將充滿暴力與不安）同意把部分自由讓渡給由他們自己授權的主權者，以致遵守著自己從未親手制定之法律的公民，仍視這些法律為正當；儘管批評者（每一位同意理論家都讓他們感到困擾）反駁說，那份據稱約束所有人的契約，實際上從來沒有任何人簽署過。

● 逆向工程

不要看原來的整個長句，只看分解出來的短句小句，試試倒頭回去寫出完整的長句。