西南民族大学金·史密斯藏学文献馆

经过协商,从2007年开始,美国著名藏学家金·史密斯先生将四十多年来苦心经营的藏传佛教文献资料中心（TBRC）收藏的数万册纸质文献和电子文献,无偿地分批捐赠给西南民族大学藏学文献中心;西南民族大学设立“金·史密斯藏学文献馆”并实行开放式管理。     

西南民族大学金·史密斯藏学文献馆的建馆历程

著名藏学家金·史密斯先生用一生的时间从事藏文文献的保护工作,在藏文文献的收集、整理、研究、利用等领域做出了巨大的贡献,为后人留下了大量的藏文文献。他在美国纽约建立了藏传佛教文献资料中心（简称：TBRC）,大量的藏文文献在国内、外藏学界利用起来。同时他也是把藏文文献的原件从国外捐赠给中国的第一位外国藏学家,2012年12月,历时5年的藏文纸质文献的捐赠工作顺利完成。本论文对金·史密斯先生建立TBRC的具体情况,捐赠纸质文献给西南民族大学的事件,西南民族大学金·史密斯藏学文献馆建馆历程等内容进行梳理,以此来缅怀为藏文文献的保护工作付出一生的美国藏学家。     

美国藏学家金•史密斯收集藏文文献的“西去东归”

金?史密斯（Ellis Gene Smith）先生由美国摩门教著名的家族成员转归藏文文献的收集、整理与研究,成为国际知名藏学家及藏传佛教文献资料中心（TBRC）的创始人,为当代世界藏学研究与发展做出了重要的贡献。金?史密斯先生收集藏文文献具有种类齐全、数字化传承、开放利用、坚持不懈等特点,充分体现了其深远的智慧和高尚的人格品德。2007年10月26日,金?史密斯先生决定将其毕生收集的藏文文献捐赠给西南民族大学,而且还为这些被捐赠的藏文文献支付了从美国纽约到中国成都的所有运输费用。西南民族大学秉承金?史密斯先生深远的智慧和周全的考虑,将其所捐赠的藏文文献珍藏在新建的“金?史密斯藏学文献馆”中供藏学学习者和研究者查阅与研究,实现了金?史密斯先生希望所捐赠的藏文文献在中国乃至世界发挥最大利用价值的宿愿。     

任乃强与康藏研究学术研讨会综述

2009年是我国著名藏学家和民族学家任乃强先生逝世20周年,为了纪念任先生对藏学事业所做出的贡献,进一步推动我国藏学尤其是康藏研究的发展.     

评戈尔斯坦的《喇嘛王国的覆灭》

一近几十年来 ,由于种种原因 ,国际上掀起了一股“西藏热” ,藏学因此也成为国际学术界炙手可热的“显学”。目前 ,国际上活跃着一批颇有影响的西方藏学家 ,梅·戈尔斯坦(Ｍ Ｇｏｌｄｓｔｅｉｎ)先生就是其中突出的代表。梅·戈尔斯坦是美国著名的人类学家和藏学家。他 193 8年 2月 8日出生于美国纽约 ,19 5 9年获密芝安大学历史学学士学位。 1960年 ,戈尔斯坦以《西藏的僧兵》一文获密芝安大学历史学硕士学位 ,并以此为发端 ,研究中国西藏问题至今。其间 ,戈尔斯坦共获得美国民间和官方提供的 42项研究赠与和资助 ,这是他得以研究藏学 40…     

妙手文章书生泪，铁肩道义西藏情——深切怀念著名藏学家陈家琎先生

我国著名藏学家陈家琎先生于2004年2月7日在北京不幸去世，他的离世是我国乃至国际藏学界的重大损失.1950年陈家琎先生随十八军进藏,长期任新华社西藏分社记者,曾为反映和介绍西藏的真实历史及现实做了大量工作.从1980年起就西藏社会科学院的筹建、《西藏研究》藏汉文版的创刊、藏事汉文文献资料的编辑出版等工作作出不可磨灭的贡献，为我们留下了400多册的藏学文献图书.我们要学习陈家琎先生的为党、为人民始终忘我的工作精神,努力完成他所未竞的事业,为实现我区“一加强、两促进”的历史任务,为繁荣发展新时期哲学社会科学和藏学研究事业作出应有贡献.     

见证时代变迁 领航藏学研究——访著名藏学家拉巴平措研究员

拉巴平措先生是我国著名的藏学家,长期从事藏族历史、宗教、文化和藏学理论研究,为我国的藏学研究事业作出了杰出的贡献,同时也见证了西藏社会日新月异的发展变化。文章回顾拉巴平措先生从事藏学工作的经历,介绍了他的学习和研究情况,以及他长期对于藏学研究尤其是西藏历史研究相关问题的思考。     

我参加历届国际藏学会议的经历

我今天把国际藏学会议的历史先说一下吧.国际藏学会议成立的时间是20世纪70年代,成立的原因是当时欧洲的一些年长的藏学家们,为了纪念西方最早的一位藏学家——匈牙利人乔玛①——而举办的.第一次国际藏学会议是在匈牙利召开的,第二次是在维也纳召开的.但是当时的国际藏学会议都是老年的藏学家在参与,没有青年人,于是青年人就有些不服气,觉得既然是国际藏学会议,为什么只有老人参加,而没有青年人的机会呢?在1976年,这些青年人就在瑞士的苏黎世举办了第一届国际青年藏学家会议,那时参加的人很少,只有七八个.他们为会议定制了一些规则,并且决定第二次会议要在英国牛津大学举行.第二次国际青年藏学家会议在由阿瑞斯·马可②主持,时间是1979年.但是,这两次青年藏学家会议,都没有中国人参加,当时我们甚至连消息都不知道,因为当时中国的"文化大革命"刚结束不久.     

国际著名藏学家杰尼特·嘉措教授应邀莅临中央民族大学讲学

2011年10月26日至10月31日,国际著名藏学家杰尼特·嘉措(Janet Gyatso)教授受中央民族大学藏学研究院邀请,在中央民族大学开始了为期一周的学术交流活动。杰尼特·嘉措现任美国哈佛大学神学院教授,长期从事藏学研究工作,是美国乃至西方藏学界的重要学者。她于1981年从美国加利福尼亚州大学伯克利分校获得博士学位,其博士论文以有关唐东杰布     

藏族文化之旅——访著名藏学家卡尔梅·桑丹坚参

卡尔梅·桑丹坚参(Samten G.Karmay,文中简称卡尔梅)是国际著名藏学家,长期从事苯教历史及其文化研究,成就斐然,代表著作有《苯教的历史与教义概述》《苯教：西藏的本土宗教》《大圆满：藏传佛教哲学与静思的讲授》《西藏的历史·神话·仪式·信仰研究》等,历任第九届国际藏学会主席、国际苯教研究会主席、法国巴黎第十大学教授、巴黎国家科学研究中心研究员等职。访谈人卡提亚·毕菲特里耶(Katia Buffetrille,文中简称卡提亚)也是当代法国著名藏学家和人类学家。文章以访谈的形式,揭示了卡尔梅·桑丹坚参从一名僧人转变为国际著名藏学家的人生经历。对藏学研究的科学方法和方式等提出了独特的见解。     

西藏共享性发展理路述要——基于藏汉文明共同体的解读兼应安竹·费雪等作者

欧美藏学界关于“西藏问题”的叙事主题,似乎都对藏汉文明之历史性质注视不够①.亚洲腹地“三原文明”的融合,构筑了中国藏汉文明的共同根基;植根于藏汉文明共同体的西藏共享性发展理路,从来就不是主观人为的“预设”,而是客观历史的抉择.     

匈牙利藏学家乌瑞学术生平及其藏学研究初探

乌瑞（Uray Géza,1921-1991）,匈牙利著名藏学家、语言学家,他在藏语言、藏族历史研究领域享有盛誉。乌瑞的学术生平大致可分为三个时期：藏学启蒙时期（1940-1948）,藏学研究初级阶段（1949-1973）,全身心投入藏学研究阶段（1973-1991）。其对藏族方言、古藏文的研究包括对藏文动词结构、藏文词后缀的探究;其对藏族的研究主要通过对古藏文历史文献的考证,以探讨吐蕃时期的历史制度等。乌瑞的研究成果体现其丰富的文献基础和扎实的文学功底。他对古西藏文献学的一些难题和有争议问题有着颇为审慎的判断力,这使他成为一代典范。目前,国内学界对乌瑞的研究不多,还有待进一步深入。     

麦克仑南论一妻多夫制

古典进化论学派学者麦克伦南（John· Fergus· McLennan）曾在其著作《原始婚姻》中对一妻多夫这种婚姻家庭形态进行了论述。麦克仑南对一妻多夫的基本看法是,这种婚姻家庭形态并不是一种例外和反常形态,而认为一妻多夫是人类社会发展的一个重要和普遍阶段。麦克仑南的这个论点是基于他对人类早期社会基本图景的推论和分析。本文试图在说明麦克伦南关于人类早期社会与婚姻发展脉络的基础上,来讨论一妻多夫制在其中的序列与价值。     

The problem of Iraqi nationalism

This article analyses the development of a tenuous Iraqi national identity since the creation of the Iraqi state in 1920. Informed by the ideas of Anthony D. Smith, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm, it argues that various political actors in Iraq have sought to reshape historical memory and thus forge a national identity. Despite many setbacks and a long series of authoritarian regimes seeking to appropriate Iraqiness for their own political purposes, and recently the threat from Kurdish irredentism, this article nevertheless contends that an Iraqi cultural ‘ethnicity’ has been created over the past nine decades.     

Managing Memphis: governance and regulation in sterile spaces of play

Designed for the express purpose of encouraging consumption-intensive capital accumulation, the physical and symbolic reconstitution of select parcels of America's urbanscape into spectacular, multifaceted environments has heralded a new epoch in the material [re]formation of urban America. Yet, on daring to venture behind the corporatist veil of urban regeneration, one is soon confronted with an array of social injustices instantiated through the brutalizing praxis of the neoliberal public/private institutional amalgams that regulate, manage, and govern today's entrepreneurial cityscapes. Our focal points in this paper are the policies and practices of social governance through which both valorized and pathologized urban bodies are made visible, regulated and managed, as they contribute toward materializing the differentiated (and indeed differentiating) new urban landscape. We concentrate our argument on one North American city, Memphis, and specifically the efforts by private and public institutions to regulate and manage the Memphis cityspace, and realize the goal of reinventing the city (both materially and symbolically). Through dissecting the Memphis scenario, we discuss, and expose: the ‘lean and mean’ (Smith, 1998) urban geographies of aggressive place management and marketing; and, the various narratives underpinning the discursive constitution of belonging and difference within the revanchist metropolis.     

师儒与官绅：传统中国治水社会的士绅研究述评

Already for quite some time, the u-nique power structure of the traditional Chinese so-ciety has been viewed and discussed in the field of humanities and social sciences. Focusing on the status and role of its gentry class, Chinese and Western scholars have deeply researched the gen-eral characteristics of the political structure in the traditional Chinese society. And the analysis of the interaction between different social groups from the perspective of the traditional Chinese ‘hydraulic ’ structure has even gradually deepened and expand-ed this research topic. This paper looks at relevant research conducted by former scholars like e. g. Weber, Wittfogel, and Fei Xiaotong while attemp-ting to come to a more historic understanding of the relationship between the imperial power and the gentry class within the power structure of tradition-al Chinese society: this essay indeed focuses on the political status and social function of the gentry class in the traditional Chinese hydraulic society. Based on the research findings of scholars like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Heinrich Marx, Weber pointed out that in Eastern societies there was a certain relationship between the autoc-racy and the local irrigation-based agriculture. And Weber believed that the relationship between the autocratic imperial power and the more local Con-fucian gentry was the key to understanding the po-litical structure of the Chinese society. At that time and place, the local water management-projects, other entrenched bureaucracies, the respected Confucian gentry, as well as the central imperial power were all intertwined together; this shaped a unique form of political power in traditional China. By borrowing Marx’ s concept of ‘the Asiatic mode of production’ , Wittfogel discussed the rela-tionship between ( i ) the political autocracy and ( ii) indigenous irrigation projects in Eastern socie-ties, seen from the perspective of political econom-ics. He proposed that the political autocracy was a result of the social functioning of hydraulic pro-jects, and briefly described the Eastern society as an ‘Oriental-authoritarian ’ society under the rule of an ‘absolute monarchy’ . In the eyes of Wittfo-gel, the traditional Chinese gentry was just a bu-reaucratic group attached to the totalitarian rule:their power did not draw from their own knowledge monopoly of value ethics and ritual standards, but solely from their power-relationship with the des-potic ruler. According to Wittfogel, the‘hydraulic society’ , totalitarian rule, bureaucratic groupings, and imperial power were all intertwined and togeth-er made up the government form of the traditional Chinese society. While Weber described the gentry as reputa-ble Confucian intellectuals, Wittfogel regarded them as mere bureaucrats firmly attached to the to-talitarian rule. In contrast with the Western schol-ars’ too simple view of the ‘gentry group’, Chi-nese scholars have emphasized that this ‘gentry group’ was an organism made up of bureaucrats and literati:they not only participated in local gov-ernance and cultural activities, but they also lived and passed on the inheritance of Confucian ortho-dox ideology. Fei Xiaotong stressed constantly that the tradi-tional Chinese political system wasn ’ t completely arbitrary;instead it was closely related to the so-cial class of the scholar-officials ( a combination of the bureaucrats and gentry within Chinese socie-ty) . Fei stated that the traditional Chinese society had a‘bottom-up’ or‘secondary/parallel’ track:this ‘informal track’ made it possible for the ordi-nary people to pass on their opinions to top level people. Guided by tao-t’ung ( Confucian orthodox-y) , the scholar-intellectuals were able to influence political power by expressing their opinions and by putting forward a set of ethical principles. Al-though they had no part in real political power, they still maintained a social prestige. As a buffer between imperial power and the common people, the scholar-officials could not only extend the pow-er of the monarch to the far corners of society, but they also could properly protect the interests of farmers through some informal channels outside of the system. In the view of Yu Yingshi, the scholar-offi-cials not only were royal officers but also teachers of the emperor: that is why they could exert con-straint to autocratic imperial power. Nevertheless, autocratic imperial power also constrained them. Even so, the bureaucrats and gentry kept alive the tao-t’ung in traditional Chinese political life, which safeguarded basic social values. However, the strength of tao-t’ung was always weaker than that of the royal power, therefore, Chinese society did have a tendency of ‘oriental despotism’ described by Wittfogel. In the study of Zhang Yahui, the scholar-offi-cial group was positioned right in middle of the so-ciety: this allowed them to work upwardly and downwardly. They thus could ( i) cooperate with the public to fight against the rulers ’ invasion of local life, and they ( ii) could compromise and a-gree with the rulers as to construct a new harmoni-ous coexistence model. His study reemphasized the historical role of the scholar-official group in keep-ing social harmony. In this study, the scholar-offi-cial group on one hand counterbalanced the central power’ s interference with local affairs, and on the other hand shaped more reasonable identities of the central power, acceptable for local communities. Zhang Yahui’ s study reminds us that-in the tradi-tional Chinese society-authoritarian rulers, the scholar-official group, and the public interlaced with, constrained, and supported each other, and thus constituted the overall picture of the traditional China. The scholar-official group thus was a major force in maintaining the social cohesion of the tra-ditional Chinese society. When indeed we consider both the ‘master-scholars’ and ‘bureaucrats’-the two special components of Chinese scholar-official class-we can better understand the characteristics of the vivid and interactive relationships between the rulers, the scholar-officials, and the local com-mon people. In other words, only when we recog-nize these two aspects of the gentry class, can we see the ‘unifying mechanism ’ of the traditional Chinese society;this allows us to develop a clearer social and historical picture of the traditional Chi-nese interaction between imperial power, scholarly power, and civil rights. To get to this new under-standing of the power structure of the traditional Chinese hydraulic society, we need to critically re-view all sorts of other simplified understandings of the period gentry group.     

羌族口头传统的灾后境遇及思考

羌族口头传统的口头传统遗留较为完整,在灾后重建中获得了有效的保护与传承,同时呈现出传统文化生态恶化、释比减少、羌语濒危等诸多危机,文化展演、释比城镇传承成为羌族口头传统的新特点。坚持保护优先原则,尊重传承主体,达成政府、学者、民众、企业等多元力量的有效整合是传承口头传统的决定性因素。     

Statelessness in a world of nation-states: the cases of Kurdish diasporas in Sweden and the UK

Mass displacement in the Middle East is a major political challenge for contemporary Middle Eastern and Western states. As a consequence, statelessness has emerged as one of the central political issues in relation to the collapse and weakening of the states in the Middle East. Through deploying a qualitative inquiry and interviews with 50 Kurdish immigrants, this article investigates how members of Kurdish diasporas in Sweden and the UK conceive and experience statelessness in a world of unequal nation-states and hierarchical citizenship. Since diasporas are important non-state actors in nation-building processes, it is important to analyse their diasporic visions and the ways they challenge or reinforce the power of the nation-state in the context of migration. While from a legal or a right-based approach, the solution to statelessness is found in acquisition of a nationality/citizenship, I posit that in a world structured by the political normativity of the nation-state, nations without states will continue to be in search of national self-determination, political autonomy and sovereignty in the international comity of sovereign nations.     

中国式现代化与中华民族共同体建设的逻辑关联 ——学习贯彻党的二十大精神体会

中国式现代化和中华民族共同体建设是习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想的重要内容。在现代国家建构视角下,中华民族共同体建设和中国式现代化表现为互相促成的逻辑关联和功能关系,分别发挥支撑与指向的功能作用,统一于全面推进中华民族伟大复兴的进程。中华民族共同体建设是推进中国式现代化的基础条件。多元一体的结构格局建设为推进中国式现代化提供了政治和文明两方面的显著优势;团结统一的内部秩序建设为推进中国式现代化提供安全保障,有助于避免认同危机、防范化解风险隐患;命运与共的共同愿景建设促进各民族共同团结奋斗、共同繁荣发展,为推进中国式现代化提供实践动力。中国式现代化是加强中华民族共同体建设的发展指向,在性质指向上要求坚持中国共产党的领导和坚持中国特色社会主义道路,在内容指向上要求开展与“人口规模巨大”“全体人民共同富裕”“物质文明和精神文明相协调”“人与自然和谐共生”“走和平发展道路”相适应的内容建设;在价值指向上要求以“自由人的联合体”为远大理想和价值追求,努力促进各族人民的全面发展。维系并深化中国式现代化与中华民族共同体建设的逻辑关联,要重视铸牢中华民族共同体意识的联系纽带作用。