【作者】 梅祖蓉；

【导师】 谭君久；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 中外政治制度， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 白鲁恂是政治文化研究领域心理文化诠释学派的代表人物,开创了西方学者对当代中国政治文化的心理文化分析。以呈现和解析白鲁恂的心理文化分析路径为目的,本文以历史主义方法从平面与纵深两个角度展开如下问题的讨论：1)白鲁恂为什么对政治文化乃至于中国政治文化产生兴趣,哪些因素影响了白鲁恂政治文化研究方法的取向?2)白鲁恂如何运用心理文化分析法研究中国政治文化?3)从白鲁恂关于中国政治文化的心理文化解释中,怎样理解心理文化分析法的解释力与价值及其固有的困境?生于中国、长于中国,固然赋予白鲁恂关注中国政治文化的情怀,但是,白鲁恂学术养成时期的时代背景和美国社会科学各学科的突破性进展、以及白鲁恂的师长与同辈是影响白鲁恂学术取向的更重要因素。20上半叶人类社会经历的痛苦与创伤让美国社会科学各领域追问着社会科学最本质的问题：人性与人的行为。文化与心理因素引起了美国人文社会科学界前所未有的重视。心理学、社会学、人类学都出现了强调以文化或心理解释人的行为的学派。行为主义政治学的大师们也呼吁政治学研究吸收与采纳心理学、社会学等邻近学科的最新理论与研究方法,并实践着自己的主张：阿尔蒙德提出了政治文化概念,拉斯韦尔开创了政治心理学研究,莱特从事政治精英的心理研究,他们都作为白鲁恂的师长或同辈引导了白鲁恂的研究取向。与此同时,以埃里克森为代表的新弗洛伊德学派的理论与研究方法则为白鲁恂提供了从心理文化角度诠释政治行为的最重要分析工具。这些理论与方法的更新如同来自各方向的光源汇聚于白鲁恂一身,形成他以心理文化的角度研究政治行为、解释中国政治的独特取向。这是本文第一章的主要内容。什么是政治文化的心理文化诠释?依据白鲁恂的整个政治文化研究历程、内容与方法来看,白鲁恂的心理文化分析法不仅意味着从心理学、社会学、文化人类学等学科引入分析工具,还意味着研究范畴的定向：分析政治行为的心理与文化根源,尤其是文化传统与人格因素。作为政治文化研究心理文化诠释学派的代表,白鲁恂的政治文化研究显示出一些持久的特征：历史主义视野；层面丰富的比较；以文化、人格与政治行为的关系为研究内容；研究主题集中于权力与权威观；在宏观研究与微观研究的平衡中,往往滑向微观的政治精英研究等。在整体上体现出他是一个具有强烈历史意识、强调问题的启发性意义、受到“新弗洛伊德主义”深刻影响、注意运用各学科理论与研究方法,尤其注重从心理文化根源理解与分析政治行为的学者。白鲁恂如何运用心理文化法研究中国政治文化,诠释中国人的政治行为?本文第三章到第五章分别从三个维度——民族与政治体系、官僚与大众、政治领袖——进行了解析。宏观维度——民族国家建设与政治体系发展——的考察,白鲁恂以转型社会政治发展中常出现的文化认同与权威危机作为阻碍中国现代化进程的基本问题。白鲁恂认为,中国没有出现其他转型社会常见的认同危机,但中国人对权威危机的体验却比其他转型社会更为深重。其原因在于中国传统政治与社会秩序结构上的高度封闭性和一元性以及由此衍生出来的政治文化特征,再加上家庭社会化的结果,一并将权威高度理想化,构成中国文明极易形成权威危机的环境。在官僚与大众的中观维度,白鲁恂运用安全与归属理论和自我认同概念分析中国政治文化在整体上呈现的矛盾性特征：共识与派系的张力；传统精英文化与大众文化、当代毛泽东的理想主义与邓小平的实用主义的二元共存。在他看来,共识的文化紧要性和派系的形成都出自安全感的渴求；而二元文化共存的根源在于人们同时被某些相互排斥的观念所吸引,以至于每一种价值观的选择背后都存在另一个可供替代的价值观。这种矛盾情感在深层心理上同出一源：自我与他者界线的模糊不清。微观维度的政治领袖研究,白鲁恂糅合拉斯韦尔重视人生史的主张、埃里克森的心理历史研究方法,截取人生史重要片段对毛泽东的人格特质进行心理历史的精神分析,指出毛泽东政治风格的矛盾性实际上出于其人格的一致性,而邓小平那独特的既秉承传统又超越传统的政治风格则来自他对中国精英政治文化传统的继承和个人社会化过程的特殊性。不可否认,白鲁恂对于中国政治文化研究作出了开创性贡献。然而,对于白鲁恂关于中国政治文化的心理文化诠释,学界褒贬不一。在各种路径的政治文化研究中,心理文化诠释是否具有不可替代的价值?其优劣何在?与问卷调查式的政治文化研究相比,心理文化方法在解释的宽度与深度上更胜一筹,然而也存在主观性较强、信服度不充分等缺陷,白鲁恂在利用心理文化分析法诠释中国政治的过程中的确出现了诸如过分重视想象、证据不充分等问题。然而,在没有任何一种方法可以解决所有问题的困局下,我们惟一的选择不应该是抛弃它,而是在不断批评的同时充分利用其长处。更多还原

【Abstract】 As being a pioneer and a leading scholar in the field of contemporary Chinese political culture study among western scholars, Lucian Pye is well-known for his psycho-cultural interpretation of Chinese political culture. Why does he develop such a special interest in Chinese political culture? What makes him use some theories and concepts coming from other disciplines such as psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology to study political culture? What does the psycho-cultural interpretation mean? How does he study Chinese political culture in making use of the approach of psycho-cultural interpretation? What does the strength and weakness of the psycho-cultural interpretation have? How should we evaluate Pye’s study about Chinese political culture? The aim of this dissertation is to answer these questions.First, why does he develop such a special interest in Chinese political culture, and why is he opted for the interpretation of politics from a psycho-cultural angle? Pye was born and brought up in China, which gave us a clue that why he has been attracted by China and Chinese politics. The main reasons that made him focus on the field of political culture, however, should be traced back to the background of the era and academic currents in American social science in the first half of 20th century as well as the influences of his tutors and colleagues upon him during the stage of his intellectual development. The trauma experienced by human in the first half of 20th century stimulated and invited social scientists to ask why human’s actions could go for the directions that could make disasters. Almost every discipline in American social science has formed a school which intended to emphasize the influences of culture or psyche upon human actions in explaining social phenomenon. Some leading scholars of behavoral movement in political science have also encouraged taking new theories and approaches of adjacent disciplines such as psychology and sociology into political science research. Pushed by such academic currents Pye was greatly influenced by Gabriel Almond, his tutor, the person who first brought forward the concept of political culture; Harold Lasswell and Nathan Neites, both well known as political psychologist; especially Erik Erikson, an exceptional representative of Neo-Freudian, who provided him with some very important psychological analytic tools in his political culture study.Second, what does the psycho-cultural interpretation mean? According to the characteristics in Pye’s political culture study, we understand that what he called the approach of psycho-cultural interpretation not only means borrowing some analytic tools from psychology, sociology and the others, but also refers to the orientation of his study, that is, the psychological or cultural bases of political actions on the part of human being. His psycho-cultural interpretations of Chinese politics are characterized by the following features:explaining political culture from a historical perspective and various comparative perspective, the theme of his study focusing on the formation of the view of power and authority, being concerned with the relationship between culture, personality and political actions, preference for the study of political elites on the balance of microanalysis and macroanalysis. In short, Pye is a scholar who pays much attention to the understanding of psycho-cultural bases of political actions, stressing the heuristic meaning of questions, influenced deeply by Neo Freudian, analyzing politics with historical perspective and useful tools and theories from other disciplines.Third, how does Pye study Chinese political culture with the approach of psycho-cultural interpretation? According to there dimensions in the Pye’s study of political cultures, we will analyze these different aspects respectively.To begin with, on the dimension of the sense of national identity and collective expectations about legitimacy and the role of power and authority, Pye trys to discover the obstacles that have operated to impede China’s modernization from the perspective of the crisis of culture identity and authority crisis which often prevail in transitional societies. In his opinion the Chinese have been spared the crises of culture identity common to most other transitional societies. However, the Chinese experienced more profound crisis of authority than the others. Some of the reasons could be attributed to the fact that the problem in cultural identity have been translated into the problems of authorities, to the fact that the sense of frustration and incompetent the Chinese felt in their course of modernization both had been exaggerated. On the other hand, the factors helping to produce the circumstances in which the crises of authority readily happen should be found in some particular and enduring characteristics of Chinese traditional social system and political system, of Chinese political culture, as well as the results of family socialization.On the dimension of group, that is, the elite and the mass, Pye takes the theory of the needs of personality and the concept of self-identity into analyzing the reasons of the ambivalences in Chinese political culture. According to Pye, Chinese political culture is characterized by contradictory tendencies, including the tension between consensus and factions, both driven by the sense of safety, and the co-existence of an elitist high political culture and a populist heterodox political culture, lots of elements in the two cultures both shared by the elites and the mass. In contemporary China the contradictory of political culture manifests itself in a dualistic co-existence of idealism of Mao Zedong and pragmatism of Deng Xiaoping. Pye points out that the reason for the co-existence of the two cultures lies in a common origin at an even deeper psychological level:the ambiguous line of the relationship of the self to others.On the dimension of leaders, Pye mixes both the points of view of Lasswell who emphasized the importance of life-histories in research and of Erikson who created the approach of psycho-history into his study of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping and so on. He analyzes Mao’s personality traits from the perspective of psychoanalysis by extracting the most important section in Mao’s life history, the relationship between Mao’s style of leadership and his personality traits. Pye points out that if we find out the coherence in Mao’s personality traits the contradictory of Mao’s style of leadership will be well-understood, that if we want to understand Deng’s unique style of leadership which is both built on the tradition and beyond the tradition we should go back to the particularity of his political socialization and the influences of Chinese traditional elitist political culture upon him.No one can deny Lucian Pye’s contributions to the study of Chinese political culture, however, what he had done both received compliments and critiques. Does the psycho-cultural interpretation have its irreplaceable value among various interpretations of political culture? What the advantages and disadvantages it have? Comparing to the approach of questionnaire survey in political culture study, the psycho-cultural interpretation of political culture is better at the width and depth of explanation than the questionnaire survey. At the same time it also has the weakness of subjectivity and of being less convincible. In the psycho-cultural interpretation of Chinese political culture on the part of Lucian Pye there indeed exists some fallacies. However, on account of the fact that no method is perfect the only choice for us is to improve it by accepting various critiques.更多还原