在绅士与知识分子之间

【作者】 杨清媚；

【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】 本文是一项以费孝通为个案的中国人类学史研究。作为中国社会科学的一位奠基人,费孝通对我们理解自身的学术传统有重要意义。通过对他的思想进行反思性的继承,我将探讨中国人类学的总体困境及其原因,由此提出有益于我们未来研究的思考。费孝通大约在20世纪30年代开始了他的学术研究,直到2003年他因病停止写作,他给我们留下了大量作品。本文将主要关注其中与人类学有所关联的部分。本项研究是在前人对费孝通研究的基础上展开的,尤其是基于大卫·阿古什和张冠生分别所著的费孝通传记。这两本传记中费孝通的形象有诸多不同;在阿古什看来,费孝通是一个受西学教育的新一代知识分子,而在张冠生眼中,费孝通则是一个官员的好榜样。然而费孝通本人并不接受这样的评价,他评论阿古什的研究忽略了他作为变革时代中的绅士这一方面。他曾说,把我的所有作品放在一起就是我的自传。在我看来,在费孝通身上,绅士和知识分子实为合一,因而应从整体上去理解他的思想世界。对此,我借用了“心”这一概念来探讨。中国古代的思想家认为他们是用“心”来思考世界,而这一“心”有其客观历史,也称“心史”;中国士人常以此表示他们对自己文化精神的坚守。在我看来,心史实际也包含了一种历史的内在精神。费孝通在江南士人的文化传统中成长,他对他们的心史是有所继承的。受到格尔兹Works and Lives(《作品与生活》)一书的方法论启发,我将在对费孝通的人生史进行理解的基础上,围绕他的文本展开论述。在他的书写中,费孝通描绘了自己眼中和心中的世界。这一世界地图可以借用王铭铭关于中国研究的“三圈”理论加以理解,分别是:以汉人为主的核心圈、以少数民族地带为主的中间圈和非中国本土的海外圈;这一图式同时也是士大夫的“天下”视野的表达。在他关于核心圈的论述中,诸如《江村经济》、《乡土中国》和《中国绅士》等,费孝通主要关注乡村工业和新绅士。他强调绅士作为现代化变革中的领导力量,同时以乡村工业作为他的社会变革的制度基础,以乡土意识作为其社会伦理。实际上他一直思考的是韦伯式的关于资本主义制度与伦理关系的问题。在燕京大学求学开始这段时期,他受到马克思·韦伯和卡尔·曼海姆的理论影响,也从导师吴文藻那里继承了具有德国理想主义色彩的“文化”概念。在他对中间圈的论述中,费孝通关注的是帝国历史的延续。游牧在山区和草原的这些少数民族,完全不同于定居乡土的汉人形象。在费孝通的设想中,帝国文明的历史目的是乡土化,进而才是本地工业化。因而,他在中间圈提倡农耕和定居。在他对海外圈的论述中,费孝通讨论了现代化的不同模式,尤其是常以英国和美国为例。他赞赏西方的现代化,同时又批评西方社会缺乏中国乡村中的亲密人情关系。从费孝通身上,我们可以理解中国士人的心态。对他们而言,从“天下”到“国族”这一转变实际是客观历史的断裂,也导致了中国学人知识视野的颠倒。其中最大的变化正是西方在这一“天下”图式中从离我们最远行至最近。然而正是因为对心史的坚持,使他们难以全盘接受西方的思想。费孝通在晚年的时候反思自己的人生与作品。通过重新阅读他的老师如马林诺夫斯基、派克、史禄国等人的作品,以及著名历史学家如钱穆、陈寅恪等人的作品,费孝通试图在中国文化传统中找到自己的思想根源。用他的话说,他想有“文化自觉”。他意识到,对中国知识分子而言,理解我们的历史和传统至关重要。综上所述,我的结论是:费孝通在心史的延续与客观历史的断裂之间书写,这既是他的困境也是中国社会科学所面临的困境。因为他对心史的坚持,使他完不成从“天下”到“国族”的转型。我们对他的心史的不了解,导致我们不断书写这一客观历史的断裂。然而,费孝通对绅士传统的理解局限于治平学一脉,他的心史并不完整。因而在他看来,绅士将承担着整个社会的责任,在他的现代化设计中,绅士的负担太重而无法解放。最后,我将反思格尔兹的人类学史研究,指出民族志并非仅是人类学家与文本的对话,人类学家同样要受到他者的影响。费孝通同时作为“土著”和研究者的身份,表明人类学家在思考的同时,“土著”也在思考。正如费孝通所说的那样,每个国家都有自己的思想家。这使我们能以更为宽容的心态来包容文化的多元。更多还原

【Abstract】 By means of the case study pertaining to Fei Xiaotong,this dissertation aims to inquire the history of Chinese anthropology.As a founder of Chinese social science, Fei is one of key persons for us to understand our academic tradition.By reflective study of Fei’s anthropological thoughts,I explore the dilemma of Chinese anthropology and inquire the causes of it,thus try to make some suggestions benefit for our future studies.Fei began his academic research around 1930s which lasted to the year 2003 when he was ill.In a huge number of his works covering various subjects,this dissertation just focuses on those works relating to anthropology.My study builds on insights from the precedent studies on Fei,especially the two biographies written by David Arkush and Zhang Guansheng respectively.These two biographies are quite different to each other.In Arkush’s description,Fei was a new intellectual with the western science training;while according to Zhang Guansheng’s book,Fei was a good officer.However,Fei didn’t agree with each of them.He said Arkush ignored his another role- he was also a gentleman in the transitional era.Fei himself addressed that his works as a whole was an autobiography.To my understanding,Fei is both a gentleman and an intellectual,and we should interpret his thoughts as a whole.I use the concept of "heart" to describe Fei’s thoughts.In the ancient time, Chinese thinkers believed that they were thinking with their "heart" instead of their "brain".And the "heart" has its own history,that is called "心史" in Chinese.In Ming dynasty,Chinese gentry use these words to refer to the faith in holding their cultural spirit.In my opinion,the history of heart actually contains a historical spirit. Fei grew up in the knowledge tradition of Chinese gentry,and as a result,he inherited their history of heart as well.Benefitted by Clifford Geertz’s methodology in his Works and Lives,I mainly analyze Fei’s texts basing on my understanding to his life history.In his works,Fei described the world in his eyes and his heart.His world map could be interpreted by Wang Mingming’s theory of "three zones in the studies of Chinese anthropology". That was:the core zone in which Han people live,the intermediaries in which ethnic groups live,and the overseas in which non-Chinese live.It is also the map in Chinese gentry’s vision called "Tian Xia"(天下).In his works on the core zone,such as Peasant life in China,Earthbound China, Chinese Gentry and so on,Fei concentrated on village industry and the new gentry. He emphasized the leading role of gentry in order to realize the modernization. Besides that,the village industry was the institutional foundation of this transform, whereas the peasants’ earthbound consciousness was the social ethic.Actually,he kept thinking of Max Webberian question about institution and ethic of capitalism. At that time,Fei was greatly influenced by Max Webber and Karl Mannheim’s theory,and also inherited the "Culture" concept with a shade of German idealism from his advisor Wu Wenzao,who learned from Franz Boas.In his works on the intermediary zone,Fei noticed the continuance of Empire history.Unlike the earthbound Han people,the ethnic groups nomadize in mountains and grasslands.In Fei’s imagination,earthbound is the goal of Empire’s civilization in history,and after that stage,local industrialization is to be achieved.Thus,he suggested developing agriculture in intermediaries.In his works on the zone of overseas,Fei found several different types of modernization,and especially took those types in England and America as the examples.He praised the modernization in the West,but at the same time he criticized the lack of the intimate relationships in Western society which was typical in Chinese villages.From Fei,we could understand the mentality of Chinese gentry.To Chinese gentry,the transition from an Empire to a Nation-State is a realistic broken-up in history which also led to a reversion on their world outlook.And the biggest change in which was the West became the nearest instead of the farthest in their former version. However,it was hard for them to accept the Western thoughts totally,because of their insistence in the history of heart.Fei reflected his life and works in his later years.By re-reading his advisors’ works,such as B.Malinowski,Park,Shirovkoff,and the famous Chinese historians Qian Mu,Chen Yin’que etc.,Fei tried to find out the roots of his thoughts in the tradition of Chinese culture.In his words,he wanted to obtain a "cultural self consciousness"(文化自觉).He realized that it was necessary for intellects to interpret our culture and history.Here comes my conclusion.In his works,Fei not only described the scenes of the broken-up history in reality but also the continual history in his heart.And this was the dilemma he always faced.Because of his insistence in this heart,Fei could not accomplish the transformation of Chinese society.It is also the dilemma Chinese social science faces.We paid no attention to his heart,that is why we could not understand Fei thoroughly.However,Fei’s understanding of the history of heart was limited and he only discussed the practical part of it.Therefore,he thought it was gentry who should shoulder the responsibilities of whole society.However,for the gentry,that was too much a burden to set them free.At last,I reflect on Geertz’s study about the history of anthropology.In my eyes, ethnographies are not just the communication between anthropologists and texts,as Geertz says,but the interaction among anthropologists,texts and natives.Furthermore, the natives even enlighten the anthropologists.Fei is an anthropologist as well as a native,that means when anthropologists think,natives think,too.That just as Fei said, every country has its native thinkers.It is helpful for us to embrace the cultural diversity of the world.更多还原