开放的社会和封闭的心灵（下）

卡尔·波普尔将封闭社会与部落主义等同的主张重新审视和修改。人类学意义上的文化概念的德国起源以及与这种文化概念相关的民间文化和文化相对主义观念被予以探索。民间文化观念的变迁及其从右向左的转向与当代的新原始主义相关。开放社会和精英文化受到了捍卫。     

农业合作化运动与农民的行动逻辑——从中国传统文化中宗族、家族主义角度认识

农民的行动逻辑,受其文化所制约,特别是中国传统文化中的宗族、家族主义。宗族、家族主义是传统农民为解决与生产、生活和娱乐密切相关的公共事务,形成了一个特定的合作与行动单位——家庭的宗族及以宗族为基础的村庄认同。农业合作化运动初级形式(农业生产互助组、初级农业合作社)与传统文化自洽获得成功;高级形式农业合作社(人民公社)失败源于超越了农民传统价值。因此,在目前中国还不是成熟的公民社会的条件下,在传统社会的巨大惯性下,“新农村建设”应以自然村(村庄)为承接基础。     

开放的社会和封闭的心灵（上）

卡尔·波普尔将封闭社会与部落主义等同的主张重新审视和修改。人类学意义上的文化概念的德国起源以及与这种文化概念相关的民间文化和文化相对主义观念被予以探索。民间文化观念的变迁及其从右向左的转向与当代的新原始主义相关。开放社会和精英文化受到了捍卫。     

Stratagems and Spoils in US Policy in the Middle East

Current uprisings in the Middle East suggest a need for reform in US foreign policy, based in economic liberalism, to the exclusion of the needs of ordinary people. From the end of World War I to the present, the US has shaped a political economy in the Middle East, based on empowerment of patricians and oligarchies to develop a competitive edge over oil and oil-related industries. The geopolitics of US intervention has been based on forming binary categories of ‘allies’ and ‘foes’, to justify economic and political alliances, regardless of the histories behind the disenchantment of US presence in the Middle East. This has generated social conflict where people no longer seem to want to support the authoritarian regions which have allied with the US. These uprisings are a desperate call for democracy to end elitism, cronyism, and corruption—a reminder of the need to rethink inconsistent agendas and clandestine interventions which have destabilized the region for almost a century.

Los levantamientos actuales en el Medio Oriente sugieren una necesidad de reformar la política exterior de los E.E.U.U., en base al liberalismo económico, a la exclusión de las necesidades de la gente ordinaria. Desde el fin de la primera guerra mundial al presente, los E.E.U.U. han dado forma a una economía política en el Medio Oriente, en base al liberalismo económico, a la exclusión de las necesidades de la gente ordinaria. Desde el final de la primera guerra mundial a la actualidad, los E.E.U.U. han configurado una economía política en el Medio Oriente, basada en el empoderamiento de los patricios y las oligarquías para desarrollar una ventaja sobre la competencia en el petróleo e industrias relacionadas. La geopolítica de la intervención estadounidense se ha basado en la formación de categorías binarias de “aliados” y “enemigos”, para justificar alianzas económicas y políticas, no obstante las historias detrás del desencanto de la presencia de los E.E.U.U. en el Medio Oriente. Esto ha generado un conflicto social, en donde la gente ya no parece que quiera apoyar los regímenes autoritarios que se han aliado con los E.E.U.U. Estos levantamientos constituyen una llamada desesperada a la democracia para terminar con el elitismo, amiguismo y corrupción—un recordatorio de la necesidad de recapitular en las agendas inconsistentes e intervenciones clandestinas que han desestabilizado la región por cerca de un centenario.

中东当前的起义表明,建基于经济自由主义、将普通人的需要排除在外的美国外交政策需要改革。从一战结束至今,美国打造了中东的政治经济,它以授权贵族和寡头集团在石油及与石油相关工业领域中发展竞争性优势为基础。美国干预的地缘政治学一直是建立在形塑“盟友”和“敌人”的双重类别基础之上,以证明经济和政治同盟的正当性,而不管它迷恋于在中东维持存在背后的历史。这已经产生了社会冲突,在其中,人们似乎不再想支持已经与美国结成同盟的威权政体。这些起义是孤注一掷的民主吁求,以终结上流人士统治、任人唯亲和腐败——提醒人们需要重新思考前后不一的议程和暗中干预,这已使该地区动荡了近一个世纪。     

Interrogating the tribal: the aporia of ‘tribalism’ in the sociological study of the Middle East

In this paper, we intend to deconstruct the term ‘tribalism’ as a colonial category, which figures as a prominent concept in social studies on Kurds as well as the Middle East at large. Blithely used, tribalism has occupied a central place, especially in the existing scholarship on Kurdistan. Some earlier anthropological works have gone so far as to regard tribalism as the ‘DNA’ of Middle Eastern people. Drawing on recent studies on Latin America, Africa and Central Asia, we argue that the use of tribalism as if it is the natural constitution of Kurdish society has caused a significant misrepresentation and oversimplification of socio‐political life in Kurdistan as well as the broader Middle East. In a way, the existing body of scholarship on this region has reproduced statist‐nationalist discourses at the expense of dominated communities (e.g., Kurds). The historical context of both colonial powers and nation‐states ‘combating tribes and tribalism’ coincided with the emergence of the discourse of racial biopolitics. Thus, the use of the term tribalism to define certain nations or ethnic groups should not be viewed as merely an application of socio‐anthropological categories. Hence, we argue that the ethical aspects and implications of the use of tribalism by both colonial powers and later by nation‐states to define certain ethnic groups must not be overlooked.