台灣地區在80年代以後，由於面臨到政治上的解嚴、經濟上的後工業轉型以及社會的多元發展，國家機器不只在統治正當性及政權合法性遭到質疑，原本高度的自主性及強勢的能力也遭逢激烈的挑戰。當很強的國家遇上逐漸增強的民間社會時，國家的內在力量也許仍高，但是自主性降低，國家必須遷就民間社會的偏好，民間社會增加了表達意見的能力，及與國家談判議價的空間，國家機器超然自主於民間社會之上的情況已不復見。 「台北市中山舊橋存廢問題案」正是一個相當典型的個案。本案涉及交通、都市設計及景觀設計、古蹟保存與水利防洪等方面的專業判斷，而民間社會各部門基於自身的專業立場以及利益考量，對於此一問題的意見相當紛歧。再者，中山舊橋的拆遷自規劃至今已歷三任市長，然歷任市府的政策偏好皆不相同，並在後來衍生出中央與地方對於自治權限的認定爭議，更引發了中央與市府官員的公開論戰；總的來說，本案的爭議不僅存在於國家與社會當中，國家機器內部以及民間社會內部亦各自存有歧見。本論文即試圖透過對「台北市中山舊橋存廢問題案」的分析與研究，從國家機器及民間社會在政策偏好的選擇，來瞭解國家機器內部、民間社會內部及國家與社會間三方面的衝突，再經由理論與實務的印證，探討解決這類衝突的可能。 本論文引介80年代興起於西方政治學界，將國家視為獨立變數的新國家主義的研究途徑，運用Nordlinger對於國家自主性類型及策略的分類，來瞭解國家機器在衝突過程當中所扮演的角色，並輔以利益團體的相關理論，藉以對於民間社會內部的衝突提出更具說服力的解釋。 本論文在架構上共分為六章，首章緒論說明本論文研究的動機與目的，並就相關文獻及分析個案作一回顧，最後提出研究架構、研究假設與研究方法。第二章介紹研究途徑---新國家主義，並對於相關基本概念加以界定，再就利益團體的理論作一檢視。第三章從個案中討論國家機器內部的衝突，其重點在於國家機器的政策偏好是如何形成、決定和運作，國家機器之間為何產生偏好上的差異，國家機器內部因偏好差異而形成的衝突應循何種途徑解決。第四章從個案中討論社會各部門間的衝突，其重點在於社會各部門間的政策偏好是如何形成、決定和運作，社會各部門間為何產生偏好上的差異，社會各部門間因偏好差異而形成的衝突應循何種途徑解決。第五章從個案中討論國家機器與民間社會之間的衝突，其重點在於國家機器與民間社會之間的衝突分析，民意代表在其間所扮演的角色；國家機器與民間社會因偏好差異而形成的衝突應循何種途徑解決。第六章為結論，綜整研究成果，對照研究假設，說明本論文的優、缺點，並提出解決國家與社會衝突的可能途徑。 / In later 80’s, due to the political, economic and social transformation of Taiwan, the state has suffered great challenge from the civil society. When there comes a conflict between the very strong state and the growing civil society, the preference of the civil society should be respect, however, the superiority of the state is no longer existing. “Taipei Old Chung-Sheng Bridge” is the typical example. All involved departments of the civil society hold quite different attitude towards the problem based on their own professional position as well as their own interests. Furthermore, the different personal preference of three consecutive mayors give rise to not only the conflict between central and local government, but also the public debates between central and city officials. To sum up, the conflict not only exits between the state and society, but also lies in the inside of the state, and the inside of the civil society in this case. The purpose of the paper is trying to find the possibility of resolving the conflict through the theoretical and practical evidence. In this thesis, Nordlinger’s classification of the state autonomy and strategy, one approach of Neo-statism theory, is used to discuss the role that the state plays in the conflicts. In addition, the theory of interest groups is applied for more persuasive explication as civil society. The thesis is divided into six parts. Chapter 1, including the motives, the purpose of this research, the literature review, the introduction of this case, the analytic framework, research hypothesis and research methods. Chapter 2, including the approach of the research--- Neo-statism, to explicate the main related conception, and explain the primary theory of interest groups. Chapter 3, including a discussion of the inner conflicts in the state by individual cases. The point is that how the preferences of the state is formed and executed, why the differences occur inside the state, and how to resolve the appeared conflicts. Chapter 4, including a discussion to the inner conflicts of the civil society by individual cases. The point is to how the preferences of each department of society are formed and executed, why the differences occur inside the civil society, and how to resolve the appeared conflicts. Chapter 5, including a discussion to the conflicts between the state and civil society by individual cases. The point is the analysis of above, the role the legislators played, and how to resolve the conflict. Chapter 6, comparing the research hypotheses, stating research results, and suggesting of the possible solutions for resolving conflicts between the state and society are made as the conclusion.

本論文對民生史觀與唯物史觀作對比研究，以期全盤重建這兩種史觀。透過對比研究法的運用、周邊還原（政治還原與系絡還原）的程序、詮釋學方法，本論文構築一個共同的時空對比架構（歷史進化論、社會發展論、人本主義）、彰顯民生史觀與唯物史觀的結構對比及兩種史觀之間的動態對比，提出新的理解與批評，並進而以這兩種史觀為領會對比韻律的理論工具，為對比哲學奉獻心力。 第二章探討民生史觀與唯物史觀的歷史進化論。孫中山為宇宙進化畫分明確的階段，有強烈的目的論傾向，馬克思則反對用目的論解釋宇宙進化。他們都認為生物進化與社會進化有明顯的區別。孫中山的歷史分期論，包括自然進化與歷史進化之分、三民進化論與民權進化論、知行進化論。馬克思第一階段的歷史分期論基於歐洲中心主義，將歐洲的歷史分期分成原始、古代、封建、近代資產生產方式等階段，後來注意到非歐世界的歷史進化及資本主義之前的經濟形構。孫中山與馬克思的歷史路線論分別是中心線東西對照論與中心線擴散論。前者出於中國中心主義，後者則基於歐洲中心主義。 第三章討論民生史觀的社會發展論。首先歸納出國內論者詮釋民生史觀的五條公式。繼而重建民生史觀的理論體系，以人民的生活為總綱，以社會的生存與國民的生計為途徑，以群眾的生命為最終目的。 第四章討論唯物史觀的社會發展論。首先羅列以往中西論者所詮釋的唯物史觀，如經濟決定論、技術決定論、多重決定論、功能解釋、有機論、公式套用論，並指出其優缺點。繼而建構馬克思唯物史觀的四種概念圖式：中心輻輳模式、中心三角模式、基礎－上層建築模式、中心直線模式。最後建構一個共同的對比模式。 第五章討論民生史觀與唯物史觀的人本主義。首先探討孫中山與馬克思的人性概念（人的定義與人的需要），對比其看法的異同。孫中山對人與自然、社會、歷史的看法的特徵是以主領客，馬克思則強調人與自然、社會、歷史的關係是辯證式的，顯露主客合一的思維。 第六章結論。第一節綜述各章研究成果。第二節略論本論文的缺點與局限，並以本文的對比架構（歷史進化論、社會發展論、人本主義）為準，展望未來的研究方向（時間分殊化、空間區隔化、生活相對化）。 / Using the methodology of Dr. Vincent Shen's philosophy of contrast, this dissertation studies Dr. Yat-Sen Sun's and karl Marx's theories fo historical evolution, social development, as well as humanism. An abstract framework is constructed and the method of hermeneutics is used to demonstrate the dynamic contrasts between Dr. Yat-Sen Sun's and Marx's views pertaining to the evolution and development of humans' history, society as well as their assumptions of philosophical anthropology, together with the structural contrast of their theories. In terms of historical evolution, the author finds out that, while Dr. Sun's view of history reveals the tendency of teleology, makes a sharp division between natural and humans' evolution, and conceptualizes humans' history from Chinese standpoint, Marx's early conception of history divides European history into a number of stages and part of this later attention is paid to non-European societies. With regard to social development, the author generalizes scholars' explanations about Dr. Sun's social theory and reconstruct his theory of social development. The author also epitomizes scholars' interpretation of Marx's materialist conception of history and reconstructs four conceptual schemas of his theory of social development. As for Dr. Sun's and Marx's humanism, the author concludes that, while Dr. Sun's humanism emphasizes the leading role of the subject, i.e., the human beings, over the objective structures, that is, the nature, the society, and the history, Marx's humanism underscores the dialectic relationships between the subject and the object structures. Finally, not only the above-mentioned argument is summarized, but the future of developing a more complete framework for the construction of the philosophy of contrast if discussed.