跨越“文野之别”的实践——再论费孝通的江村研究

江村是著名社会学家、人类学家费孝通成名的起点，又是他近70年持续研究中国农村发展道路的研究基地。他踏出的江村研究之路，表达了西方人类学大师“梦寐以求的愿望”，开拓了人类学从研究野蛮人转向研究文明人的新时代。文章指出，费孝通的江村研究是由环环相扣的偶然因素促成的，同时又是有计划、动机明确、志向高远的一项研究。他进行的中国乡村“文明社区”——江村研究的实践， 跨越了“文野之别”，开拓了人类学研究的新领域，西方学者给予了高度评价。时代造就了《江村经济》，《江村经济》把费孝通推向了世界学术前沿。费孝通“志在富民”，江村研究以探索农民怎样发展生产力，摆脱贫困走向富裕道路为主旨，揭示了“江村人”的思想观念、人际关系和生活方式等的变化。文章认为费孝通的“江村”研究在理论和实践上做出了重大的贡献，为后继学者的研究奠定了基础。他未竟的事业，将由“江村学”研究肩负。     

芝加哥舞女、中国洗衣工与北平囚犯:都市中的陌生人

本文指出，受齐美尔“陌生人”命题启发的“边缘人”概念，体现了形式社会学与美国实用主义在芝加哥学派理论中的交融，并催生了以考察个体生命史为核心的研究方法。通过比较二十世纪初芝加哥学派的学者运用生命史的视角对三类都市陌生人（芝加哥舞女、中国洗衣工与北平囚犯）的研究，本文考察不同人群的新旧历程及其进入都市新生活的不同状态。研究发现，无论是身处异国的中国洗衣工，还是背井离乡进入城市生活并沦为罪犯的中国农民，都不能以“边缘人”抛弃乡土与家族的个体化方式进入都市生活。文章最后尝试以帕克对“文明”的讨论来解释现代个体进入都市生活时呈现的不同状态。     

A Danger to Themselves and to Others

Summary Some account is given of a small group of offender/patientsdefined as dangerous or potentially dangerous. Reasons are putforward in an attempt to explain an apparent reluctance to workwith such clients and the unease that often occurs when so doing.It is suggested that an approach may be required to such offender/patientswhich differs in some respects from more traditional modes oftreatment. Emphasis is placed upon the need for careful observationof material facts and events in the lives of such clients inaddition to the careful observation of the manifestations offeelings and attitudes which may give premonition of dangerousor potentially dangerous behaviour     

A Tribute to Hemingway

Sad news comes to us from far-off Sun Valley, USA. Ernest Hemingway is gone. He was not one of those who die in bed. Yet it is still hard to believe that the torero, the boxer, the soldier and big-game hunter, but first of all the great writer is no longer among the living. How many times has the telegraph brought us news of his death: a plane in which he was flying had crashed; he had vanished in the remote African jungle. The rumors always turned out to be just rumors. We were almost ready to believe that death would always pass him by. And now this news….     

A Response to Farrell

This article responds directly to an article published in this journal in February 2010 by Graham Farrell entitled ‘Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice and harm reduction versus “cultural criminology” ’. (Farrell's article, in turn, was a rejoinder to my original 2007 article ‘Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice theory versus the “culture of now” ’). In his article, Farrell sets out a case for the role of ‘harm reduction’ and rational choice theory as tools to reduce the contemporary crime problem, concluding that ‘Cultural criminology seems to offer little, if anything, useful to inform crime reduction efforts’. This article rejects this statement and offers a counter critique of the instrumental approach promoted by Farrell. Importantly, this response article is not intended as an outright critique of situational crime prevention per se, rather it is an assessment of Farrell's specific critical logic and the various shortcomings associated with his argument.     

A Strategic Approach to Aggression

Two issues raised by Underwood, Galen and Paquette (2001) are discussed in more detail. The distinction between indirect and relational forms of aggression is explored: although they coincide in many current studies, they involve potentially separate dimensions, so that social manipulation may occur face-to-face, and indirect aggression may not involve manipulating others. These forms of aggression are at the margins of the usual definitions of aggression, and may be better viewed as social strategies. The normative view of aggression inherent in the social information processing model is questioned from an evolutionary perspective, and in the light of research on bullying, which indicates that aggressive individuals may be socially skilled. This perspective coincides with the strategic approach arising from consideration of relational aggression.