变革社会中的人生与学术

【作者】 伍婷婷；

【导师】 王铭铭；

【作者基本信息】 中央民族大学 ， 人类学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本论文是以李绍明为核心个案的中国人类学史研究,其最主要的分析对象是关于李绍明的人生史访谈材料以及他的学术作品。本论文并非为李绍明个人立传,因此不涉及对人物的是非功过作价值判断;严格说来,这项研究毋宁是“对一位人类学家进行的人类学研究”(theanthropology ofan anthropologist),其目的在于,通过理解这位新中国培养出来的学者的所作所为,去认识被学界认为具有“人类学中国特色”的20世纪50、60年代中期的中国人类学(在这一时期称为“民族学”或“民族研究”)的面貌。李绍明生长在成都,其父清末以来常年在西康藏彝民族地区工作。李1950年考入华西协和大学社会学系民族学组,两年后因为院系调整,被并入四川大学历史系,一年后由于国家开展民族工作的迫切需要,再次转入西南民族学院“民族问题研究班”。四年辗转三校的经历,给了李绍明较为多样化的学科背景,但是,由于新中国意识形态对民族问题的高度关注,李绍明的知识训练里仍然是以当时占主流的马克主义唯物论、苏联民族学传统以及延安时期以来的民族政策、理论为核心。1956年至1964年,李绍明参加全国少数民族社会历史调查工作。他首先作为四川组的成员参与凉山彝族社会性质调查,1959年被抽调到云南组参与《彝族简史》的编写,1961年又被派往羌族组主持《羌族简史简志合编》编写。在这个过程中,他形成了两个主要的学术关注点,一是社会性质研究,二是民族史以及民族族源研究。70年代末李绍明恢复民族学研究后,直至80年代中后期,其成果主要集中在这两个领域,如《凉山彝族奴隶社会》、《羌族史》等,并且也大致延续了50、60年代开始的思考和学术观点。中国人类学研究在服务于民族国家建设需要的情境下,其知识生产过程和乔治·斯托金(George Stocking)等人讨论的西方人类学“殖民情境”(colonial situation)可以构成密切的对话关系。首先,我们当然也认识到,那一时期的民族研究也是政治力量直接介入下的产物,人类学的知识生产过程背后也隐藏着外部权力的支配。但是,与西方后现代人类学史研究的发现有所不同的是,在中国,学术与政治的关系绝非用权力普遍性、决定性的观点就可以全然解释的。中国知识分子传统的“经世致用”观念也在很大程度上导致了他们和政治权力合作的主动性、自觉性;而“道统”观念决定了他们在和权力合作的过程中,又会保持必要的批评和警惕的姿态。其次,西方“殖民人类学”背后固然有斯托金等人批评的种种权力格局,但不可否认的是,其主要旨趣还在于正确认识他者,从而对其实行有效的治理。而这一时期的中国人类学研究,其目的是服务于新政权的民族-国家建设需要。基于这样的出发点,这些朝向社会改造目标的调查,均是以一种单线的、政治经济学理性论的历史观念来看待少数民族资料,其基本框架是摩尔根-恩格斯-斯大林对原始社会、文明社会以及五种社会形态的划分,将不同民族原本多元的文化和历史发展线路,看成了应该得到社会主义改造的“过去”。这种历史目的论导致的后果是,研究者习惯于用客位视角来认识自己的研究对象,而丧失了“同情式”理解的精髓。再次,西方“殖民情境”隐含的意思是,人类学家和“土著”有史以来的第一次遭遇。但在中国的情境里,人类学知识的产生,是基于对“内部他者”的再认识。人类学家所代表的汉族与作为认识对象的少数民族在历史上存在过长期复杂的互动关系。有些少数民族甚至创造过自己的文字、历史和神话叙事,并且建立过政权。他们在与汉族的互动过程中,曾经各自吸收过对方的文明和文化因素,因此形成了一种“你中有我、我中有你”(费孝通语)的格局。对这样一种他者的人类学研究,当然会发展出本土独特的方法、视角以及情感,比如马长寿等人的研究就是典范。只是在50、60年代的特殊语境里,在继承民国时期人类学优秀传统的同时,也将之简单化为民族间的友好交往关系,以及一套中原王朝和少数民族地方自上而下的涵盖关系。最后,必须清醒认识到的是,尽管出于民族国家建设和社会改造的需要,少数民族的不同社会面貌被整齐划一地编排进一套进化序列里,但是,对“应然”的臆测并不能真正替代“实然”。进入70年代末至80年代中期,当对民族研究的意识形态干预发生变化时,对国家内部的地方特殊性和民族社会、文化多样性的强调突然成为这同一批人类学者的追求,于今则愈演愈烈。这至少证明了民族国家的追求并不能彻底消灭原来天下体系内部的文明多元及其地方感,而对50、60年代中国人类学民族研究的考察,只有结合了对后期的关照,才可能获得完整的理解。综上,本论文的探讨可以为中国人类学史、尤其是国际人类学史研究提供方法论和视野上的有益反思和补充。更多还原

【Abstract】 Based on both the life history of Li Shaoming,narrated by Li himself,and his academic works,this dissertation analyses the history of Chinese anthropology from early 1950’s through the middle of 1960’s, which is called by some native anthropologists and historians of anthropology as“having Chinese characters”.Happily not to be taken as the biography of Li Shaoming,this dissertation should be considered as“the anthropology of an anthropologist”,aiming to discuss the production of Chinese anthropological knowledge.In 1933 Li was born in Chengdu,Sichuan,the regional center of Southwest China where many ethnic minorities had been living for long. His father,Liheng,used to work for government of late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China,helping set elementary schools for ethnic peoples in the remote western parts of Sichuan.Due to this,in 1950 when he obtained admission into West China Union University(华西协和大学),where he chose ethnology as his major,Li had been told by his father much about the minorities such as Tibetans,Yi and Miao people, which had been raising his interest into these“Others”.Though he was twice transferred to another university during the four years of college time,which seemed having brought him quite different academic traditions,he had been mostly trained with Marxist materialism and Chinese Communist Party’s policy and theory on minority’s treatment, the latter mainly coming from former USSR.Having finished his courses in college,Li failed finding a job in Chongqing,where he hoped to work for the Minzu Affairs Committee under Southwest Bureau of central government(中共中央西南局民族委员会).After a two-year teaching in Aba Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, in 1956 Li eventually grabbed an opportunity to leave there and join the nation-wide investigation into minorities organized by central government.He had been working within the team until 1964,serving as a common member,then a secretary and later a supervisor.During the period of investig?????;?;瑉椠?桴?敫?潴攠普牯散琠敨朠癯牥浮湥?畦据楴湯漠?摡業楮瑳慲楴湯愠捣牯楤杮琠?慬?潦?桴?潣獮牴捵楴湯漠?摡業楮瑳慲楴湯氠睡攠普牯散敭瑮猠獹整??楨慮椊?捯畣祰湩?桴?牣捵慩?桰獡?景攠潣潮業慣?湡?桴?潳楣污猠牴捵畴敲爊晥牯業杮?湕敤?桴?潣摮瑩潩?景洠牡敫?捥湯浯?椠?獩挠畲楣污猠捯慩?敤敶潬浰湥?敲畱獥?潦?桴?畦据楴湯漠?潌慣?畡桴牯瑩?景爠来潩慮?畡潴潮祭映牯渠瑡潩慮楬楴獥琠?敢琠慲獮潦浲摥?桔獩映畯瑲?慰瑲漠?桴?牡楴汣?湡污穹獥琠敨挠湯潮慴楴湯漠?桴?慬?湥潦捲浥湥?摡業楮瑳慲楴湯?桴?敭湡湩?景愠瑵湯浯畯?潬慣?潧敶湲敭瑮愠浤湩獩牴瑡癩?慬?湡?摡業楮瑳慲楴敶氠睡攠普牯散敭瑮猠獹整?愠摮戠楲杮?潦瑲?灳捥晩捩椠敤獡琊?潳癬?桴?牰扯敬?湩愠瑵湯浯畯?潬慣?潧敶湲敭瑮愠浤湩獩牴瑡潩??可?潬杮愠?桴?潧敶湲敭瑮椠?潧敶湲敭瑮戠?慬?椠獴愠瑵潨楲祴椠?楬業整?椠?畭瑳愠捣灥?慶楲畯?敲瑳慲湩?愠摮琠敨洠獯?慢楳?獩琠?捡散瑰?敬慧?桴?敲瑳慲湩?吠敨朠癯牥浮湥?湯祬洠癯湩?湩氠来污爠汵??捳灯?慣n ???;?;瑉椠?桴?敫?潴攠普牯散琠敨朠癯牥浮湥?畦据楴湯漠?摡業楮瑳慲楴湯愠捣牯楤杮琠?慬?潦?桴?潣獮牴捵楴湯漠?摡業楮瑳慲楴湯氠睡攠普牯散敭瑮猠獹整??楨慮椊?捯畣祰湩?桴?牣捵慩?桰獡?景攠潣潮業慣?湡?桴?潳楣污猠牴捵畴敲爊晥牯業杮?湕敤?桴?潣摮瑩潩?景洠牡敫?捥湯浯?椠?獩挠畲楣污猠捯慩?敤敶潬浰湥?敲畱獥?潦?桴?畦据楴湯漠?潌慣?畡桴牯瑩?景爠来潩慮?畡潴潮祭映牯渠瑡潩慮楬楴獥琠?敢琠慲獮潦浲摥?桔獩映畯瑲?慰瑲漠?桴?牡楴汣?湡污穹獥琠敨挠湯潮慴楴湯漠?桴?慬?湥潦捲浥湥?摡業楮瑳慲楴湯?桴?敭湡湩?景愠瑵湯浯畯?潬慣?潧敶湲敭瑮愠浤湩獩牴瑡癩?慬?湡?摡業楮瑳慲楴敶氠睡攠普牯散敭瑮猠獹整?愠摮戠楲杮?潦瑲?灳捥晩捩椠敤獡琊?潳癬?桴?牰扯敬?湩愠瑵湯浯畯?潬慣?潧敶湲敭瑮愠浤湩獩牴瑡潩??可?潬杮愠?桴?潧敶湲敭瑮椠?潧敶湲敭瑮戠?慬?椠獴愠瑵潨楲祴椠?楬業整?椠?畭瑳愠捣灥?慶楲畯?敲瑳慲湩?愠摮琠敨洠獯?慢楳?獩琠?捡散瑰?敬慧?桴?敲瑳慲湩?吠敨朠癯牥浮湥?湯祬洠癯湩?湩氠来污爠汵??捳灯?慣n Madison,Wisconsin:the University of Wisconsin Press,1991.) developed by George Stocking and his colleagues.As“colonial situations”unveils the political power behind western anthropology,it is admitted that political power also interferes in the production of Chinese ethnological knowledge.While in the western context“power”is seen as determinative,in China the relationship between power and knowledge is much more complicated and subtle for by tradition Chinese scholars(in this case anthropologists are also included) are more likely and consciously to cooperate with the politics.While western anthropology attempts to,from the emic point of view,understand“Others”well with the goal of governing them successfully,under the stress of building a new nation-state,Chinese anthropology is to sort minorities into the evolutionary ladder,aiming at fashioning them into the same phase of Han people.“Colonial situation”means a first encounter in history between the western and natives,but in the case of China it is obvious that Han people, represented by anthropologists,and minorities,the objects of study who have developed their own civilizations and polities,have been historically in various relationships with one another for thousands of years.In conclusion,having noticed and analyzed the above differences and dialogues between western and Chinese anthropology,this dissertation goals to supplement the previous studies on history of the discipline of Chinese anthropology by providing a meaningful case, which(the studies) lack of dealing with,in details,the complexities of the period from early 1950’s through the middle 1960’s.更多还原