摘 要
在當代的政治哲學領域中，Michael Walzer是位相當重要的人物。他於1983年所出版的《正義諸領域：對多元主義與平等的辯護》一書中，提出了他最具創見的「複雜平等」論述，試圖藉此重新詮釋平等的觀念。本研究旨在探討Walzer複雜平等論述的內涵、分析Walzer有關公民資質的概念，並將兩者結合，從中尋繹對公民教育的啟示。總結而言，本研究主要的研究目的為：
一、探討Walzer學術思想概要與其關心之議題。
二、分析Walzer複雜平等論述之理論內涵與在教育上之應用。
三、析論Walzer理論中公民資質的內涵。
四、結合二、三項目的之研究結果，闡明Walzer理論中與公民教育相關之概念。
五、根據研究成果，提出對公民教育的建議。
綜合前述的探究，本研究的結論如下：
一、Walzer的學術思想基礎是政治多元主義，而且他多元主義的立場也延伸到有關自我和社會的組成方面。
二、Walzer在建構正義原則時注重整個社會對正義、平等觀念的共識與詮釋，因此其複雜平等論述代表了政治哲學轉向詮釋的取向。
三、Walzer的複雜平等論述乃是由整體的角度重新思索平等的內涵，並為平等的內涵與意義提供了與過去不同的理解與詮釋。
四、Walzer認為現今社會中的公民資質有消退的現象，可能會造成民主國家發展障礙，故此問題應予以重視。
五、Walzer認為教育機會與資源之分配應受到尊重，而公民教育也應重視公民美德的培育，方能培養健全之公民。
最後，本研究擬對公民教育提下以下建議：
一、在當前多元文化社會的情境下，國家所應重視的乃是提供各族群平等的機會，而非確保各族群生存之延續。
二、為了維護教育分配的自主性，我們應重新思索教育領域的自主。此外，我們亦應維持學校適當的封閉性與自主性。
三、在公民教育的課程安排方面，國家只需制定共同的核心課程，至於其他課程，則可由學校依所在地區的文化特色與資源自行訂定。
四、為了培養健全的公民，公民教育的實施除了知識的傳授與能力的養成之外，亦應重視公民美德的培養。
關鍵字：Michael Walzer，複雜平等，公民資質，公民教育

Michael Walzer’s ‘Complex Equality’
and its Application to Citizenship Education
Wen-hsien Su
Abstract
In the field of contemporary political philosophy, Michael Walzer undoubtedly occupies a significant position. In his book Spheres of Justice: A defense of pluralism and equality, he put forward his arguments of “complex equality” in an attempt to reinterpret the concept of equality. The primary purpose of this study is to explore and explicate the concept of complex equality, analyze Walzer’s ideas of citizenship, and, by combining them, work out the implications for and application to citizenship education. To sum up, the purposes of this thesis are as follows:
1.To comprehend Michael Walzer’s academic achievements and concerning issues.
2.To analyze Walzer’s “complex equality” and its application to education.
3.To elucidate Walzer’s ideas of citizenship.
4.To elaborate the implications for citizenship education in Walzer’s works.
5.To provide recommendations for citizenship education based on the research results.
According to the purposes, the conclusions of this thesis are as follows:
1.The basis of Walzer’s academic works is political pluralism.
2.Abandoning Rawl’s methods of pursuing abstract principles, Walzer takes a different path by appealing to the consensus and interpretation of justice and equality in a society, signaling a turn to the interpretation approach.
3.When defining the meaning of equality, Walzer tries to take into consideration the distribution of all social goods, which is more holistic.
4.Walzer thinks that citizens nowadays are more indifferent to public affairs and less public-spirited, which really deserves our attention.
5.Walzer regards education as an essential social good which has its own distribution sphere. Furthermore, the cultivation of civic virtues should also be incorporated into citizenship education.
Finally, the recommendations for citizenship education can be summarized as follows:
1.Under the present context of multicultural societies, what the nation should do is to provide equal opportunities for every group and grant all citizens equal standings and fundamental capacities.
2.We should contemplate and preserve the autonomy of education. Moreover, the closure and autonomy of schools should also be safeguarded.
3.As for the curricular arrangements of citizenship education, the nation should establish core curriculum so as to guarantee all citizens equal fundamental capacities and knowledge.
4.To achieve the goal of developing mature and responsible citizens, the cultivation of civic virtues should also be emphasized.
Key words: Michael Walzer, complex equality, citizenship, citizenship education

參考文獻
一、中文部份
石元康（1989）。洛爾斯。台北：東大。
李豐斌（譯）（1999）。F. Watkins著。西方政治傳統：近代自由主義之發展。台北：聯經。
周業謙、周光淦（譯）（2000）。D. Jary ＆ J. Jary著。社會學辭典。台北：貓頭鷹。
林火旺（1998）。羅爾斯正義論。台北：台灣書店。
楊慧玲（譯）（2001）。M. H. Lessnoff著。當代政治哲學巨擘。台北：韋伯文化。
鄧正來（2001）。市民社會。台北：揚智。
錢永祥（2001）。縱欲與虛無之上：現代情境裡的政治倫理。台北：聯經。
應奇（1999a）。羅爾斯。台北：生智。
應奇（1999b）。社群主義。台北：揚智。
應奇（2000）。後自由主義。台北：揚智。
二、英文部份
Armstrong, C. (2000). Philosophical interpretation in the work of Michael Walzer. Politics, 20(2), 87-93.
Arneson, R.J. (1996). Against ‘complex equality’. In D. Miller ＆ M. Walzer(Eds.), Pluralism, justice, and equality. (pp.226-252). New York: Oxford.
Avineri, S., ＆ de-Shalit, A.(1992). Introduction. In S. Avineri & A. de-Shalit(Eds.), Communitarianism and individualism. (pp.1-11). New York: Oxford University Press.
Barbalet, J. M. (1988). Citizenship. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Bellamy, R. (1992). Liberalism and modern society. Oxford: Polity Press.
Brewer, T. (2000). Civil society and democracy: A conversation with Michael Walzer. [WWW page]. URL http://religionanddemocracy.lib.virginia.edu/HH/spring00?breWalzVol2.html (visited 2002/8/9 20:11)
Carens, J. H. (1996). Complex equality, cultural difference, and political community. In D. Miller ＆ M. Walzer(Eds.), Pluralism, justice, and equality. (pp.45-66). New York: Oxford.
Clarke, P. B. (1996). Citizenship. In P. B. Clarke & A. Linzey (Eds.), Dictionary of ethics, theology and society. (pp. 140-145). London: Routledge.
Crick, B. (2000). Essays on citizenship. London: Continuum.
Curriculum vitae. (n. d.). Retrieved June 4, 2002, from http://ethics.acusd.edu/eac/Archive/Walzer/cv.html
Galston, W. (1991). Liberal purposes: Goods, virtues, and duties in the liberal state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glendon, M.A. (1991). Rights take: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: Free Press.
Gray, J. (1995). Liberalism(2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University.
Gray, J. (1997). Enlightenment’s wake: Politics and culture at the close of the modern age. London: Routledge.
Kymlicka, W. & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: a survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104, 352-381.
Kymlikca, W. (1999). Education for citizenship. In J. M. Halstead & T. H. Mclaughlin(Eds.), Education in morality.(pp. 79-102) London: Routledge.
Marshall, G. (Ed.)(1998). Oxford dictionary of sociology(2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University.
Miller, D. (1996a). Introduction. In D. Miller ＆ M. Walzer(Eds.), Pluralism, justice, and equality. (pp.1-16). New York: Oxford.
Miller, D. (1996b). Complex equality. In D. Miller ＆ M. Walzer(Eds.), Pluralism, justice, and equality. (pp.197-225). New York: Oxford.
Rawls, J. (2001). A theory of justice(rev. ed.). Massachusetts: Harvard University.
Rustin, M. (1996). Equality in post-modern times. In D. Miller ＆ M Walzer(Eds.), Pluralism, justice, and equality. (pp.17-44). New York: Oxford.
Tam, H. (1998). Communitariansim: A new agenda for politics and citizenship. New York: New York University Press.
Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. (pp. 25-73).
Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. UK: Martine Robertson & Company.
Walzer, M. (1988). The company of critics. New York: Basic.
Walzer, M. (1992). The civil society argument. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), Dimensions of radical democracy: Pluralism, citizenship and community. London: Routledge.
Walzer, M. (1994). Civility and civic virtue in contemporary America. In B. S. Turner ＆ P. Hamilton(Eds.), Citizenship: Critical concepts (Vol. 2). (pp.176-187) London: Routledge.
Walzer, M. (1995). Education, democratic citizenship and multiculturalism. Journal of philosophy of education, 29(2), 181-189.
Walzer, M. (1996a). What it means to be an American. New York: Marsilio.
Walzer, M. (1996b). For identity. New Republic, 215(23), 39.
Walzer, M. (1997). On toleration. New Haven: Yale University.
Walzer, M. (1998a). Pluralism and social democracy. Dissent, winter 1998, 47-53.
Walzer, M. (1998b). The concept of civil society. In M. Walzer(Ed.), Toward a global civil society.(pp.7-27) Oxford: Berghahn.
Walzer, M. (1998c). Introduction. In M. Walzer(Ed.), Toward a global civil society.(pp.1-4) Oxford: Berghahn.
Walzer, M. (2001). Thick and thin: Moral arguments at home and abroad. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.
Warnke, G. (1993). Justice and interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press.