摘要

技治主义（Technocracy）兴起于20世纪30、40年代的美国技治主义运动，之后一直饱受批判。尽管技治主义运动很快走向失败，但这一思想并未消亡，而是以不同模式在不同国家或组织中蓬勃发展至今，且已成为一些国家或组织的主要特征，如新加坡、欧盟等。随着互联网、物联网、云计算、大数据、人工智能、区块链等技术的快速发展，当代社会正在步入智能社会，这极大推动了以科学技术为重要基础的技治主义的发展。在智能社会中，虽然仍备受责难，但不可否认，技治主义在智能社会政治决策、行政管理、社会治理等领域中发挥着重要作用，已然成为智能社会运行与治理的重要特征。显然，技治主义在智能社会的发展与过去人们简单将技治主义视作一种“乌托邦”或“敌托邦”的观点并不相符。如此，以此为基础形成的两种，即单纯支持或反对技治主义的态度也就存在很大问题。为此，论文将对智能社会技治主义进行系统研究，以厘清智能社会技治主义的内容、作用、风险等。在此基础上，论文提出一种异于单纯支持或反对技治主义的态度，即审度的技治主义。这不仅对充分发挥智能社会技治主义的作用具有重要价值，而且对推进技治主义的理论研究具有重要意义。

总的来说，本文的主要内容如下：

论文第1章主要论述了智能社会技治主义的缘起。论文认为，智能社会极大推动了技治主义两个核心原则的发展，以及技治主义已成为智能社会治理的重要特征，这使得智能社会中的技治主义与过去的技治主义具有本质上的区别。为将两者进行区分，论文将过去的技治主义称作传统技治主义，而将智能社会中的技治主义称为智能社会技治主义。

在第2章中，论文对智能社会技治主义进行了界定，认为智能社会技治主义是技治主义在智能社会中的最新发展和形式，与传统技治主义具有不同特征和内容的治理理论，主要强调智能技术、科技专家在当代社会发展和建设中发挥重要作用。相较于传统技治主义，智能社会技治主义具有治理智能化、治理精准化、推进民主运行和兼顾人文关怀等特征。

第3章主要从核心原则、运行模式、主要类型三个方面详细分析了智能社会技治主义的主要内容，这些内容与传统技治主义具有很大区别。

论文第4章中重点论述了智能社会技治主义存在的主要风险，即政治风险、经济风险、伦理风险和法律风险。其中，法律风险在传统技治主义并不存在，是智能社会技治主义新出现的风险。

在论文最后一章，即第5章中，论文提出了应对智能社会技治主义风险的对策，主要包括法律规制、民主治理、伦理调试、行政监管、技术教育等。

结语部分，论文基于对智能社会技治主义的研究，提出了一种新的技治主义态度，即审度的技治主义。审度的技治主义主张将技治主义放在具体的背景下去进行价值评价，而不从整体上对技治主义进行单纯支持或反对。

关键词：技治主义;智能社会技治主义;审度

Abstract

Technocracy arose from the American Technocracy Movement in the 1930s and 1940s and has been criticized ever since. Although the Technocracy Movement failed soon，technocracy did not die out. It flourished in different countries and organizations in different models, which has become the main feature of some countries or organizations, such as Singapore, European Union and so on. With the rapid development of the Internet, the Internet of things, cloud computing, big data, artificial intelligence and block chain, the contemporary society is stepping into an intelligent society, which greatly promotes the development of technocracy based on science and technology. In the intelligent society, there is no denying that technocracy plays an important role in the political decision-making, administrative management, social governance although it is still condemned. And it has become an important feature in the operation and governance of the intelligent society. Obviously, the development of technocracy in the intelligent society is not consistent with the simple view of technocracy as a kind of “utopia” or “dystopia”. In this way, the two attitudes which are the pure support or opposition to technocracy formed based on the two kinds of technocracy are also very problematic. Therefore, in order to clarify the contents, functions and risks of technocracy of intelligent society, this paper will make a systematic study of technocracy of intelligent society. On this basis, the paper puts forward an attitude called the reconsidering technocracy, which is different from the  simply supporting or opposing technocracy. It is not only of great value to give full play to the role of technocracy of intelligent society, but also of great significance to promote the theoretical research of technocracy.

In summary, the main content of this paper is as follows:

The first chapter mainly discusses the origin of technocracy of intelligent society. The paper holds that the intelligent society greatly promotes the development of the two core principles of technocracy, and technocracy has become an important feature of governance of intelligent society, which makes the technocracy of intelligent society substantially different from the past technocracy. In order to distinguish the two technocracy, the paper refers the past technocracy as traditional technocracy, and the technocracy in the intelligent society as technocracy of intelligent society.

In chapter 2, this paper defines the technocracy of intelligent society. The paper holds that technocracy of intelligent society is the latest development and form of technocracy in the intelligent society and it has different characteristics and contents from the traditional theory of technocracy, which is the theory of governance mainly emphasized intelligent technology, science and technology experts are playing an important role in the development and construction of contemporary society. Compared with the traditional governance, technocracy of intelligent society is characterized by intelligent governance, precise governance, democratic operation and humanistic care.

Chapter 3 mainly analyzes the main contents of technocracy of intelligent society from three aspects: core principles, operation modes and main types, which are quite different from traditional technocracy.

Chapter 4 focuses on the main risks of technocracy of intelligent society, namely political risk, economic risk, ethical risk and legal risk. Among them, the legal risk does not exist in the traditional technocracy. It is a new risk emerging in the technocracy of intelligent society.

In the last chapter, chapter 5, the paper puts forward corresponding strategies to deal with the risks of technocracy of intelligent society, which mainly include legal regulation, democratic governance, ethical adjustment, Administrative supervision and technical education.

In the epilogue part, based on the study of technocracy of intelligent society, the paper puts forward a new attitude of technocracy, that is, the reconsidering technocracy. The reconsidering technocracy advocates that technocracy should be put in a specific context for value evaluation, rather than simply support or oppose it on the whole.

Keyword： Technocracy, Technocracy of Intelligent Society, Reconsideration