民族学的民族国家形态及其他——中国民族学史散论

本文围绕民族学/人类学的民族国家形态、民族学和中国的现代性、殖民主义和中国民族学等三个论题,结合中国民族学的发展史,对中国民族学知识的发展及其性质展开深入的理论探讨和反思。其中,对民族学知识中国形态的发展及其学术价值所作的细致分析,以及对现代性和殖民主义在中国民族学发展上的影响所给予的分析和评价,对理解中国民族学史的发展,提供了较为新颖的视角。     

论多民族国家的政治理念及其贡献--以中国多民族国家与美国民族-国家的比较为例

西方学者认为,当前的世界是一个由“民族-国家(nation-state)”构成的“国际体系”。随着工业资本主义的全球扩张,“民族-国家”体系也已经扩张到全球的每一个角落;“民族主义(nationalism)”迄今为止仍然是全球范围内影响最为深远、最具有号召力的政治口号之一。但中国作为一个特例,在经历了引进“民族主义”话语的时代以后,却最终选择了“多民族国家”的政治理念,并在现实运作中稳步发展,这表明“民族-国家”及其“民族主义”意识形态并非这个世界上的唯一选择。     

共生理论视阈下中华民族共同体建构的五维向度

中华民族共同体建构的基本逻辑是一个从"求同存异"到"聚同化异"的过程,旨在构建一个多民族休戚与共、血脉相连的共生关系与共生状态。中华民族共同体的有效建构必须赋予"共生"的理念,以责任、族际、文化、利益、命运为共生单元的建构逻辑,进而推动中华民族政治共同体、文化共同体、价值共同体、利益共同体、命运共同体的全面建构。     

The Relevance of Modernity to Contemporary East Asia: An Outline

This article offers a framework for exploring the relevance of modernity to contemporary East Asia. I first examine different conceptualizations of modernity, paying special attention to Eisenstadt's influential concept of multiple modernities. Second, I point out the limitations and flaws of Eisenstadt's theory by drawing on nationalist politics in East Asia as an illustrative case. In particular, I examine the so-called “history perception problem,” which has been created by war and shaped by the legacies of war, to demonstrate the peculiar features of modernity in East Asia. Third, I use the works by three scholars as examples to show how intellectuals in China, South Korea, and Taiwan respond to the tensions between universalism and particularism, which, as a whole, reflect what can be called “East Asian modernity.” And finally, I try to respond to the controversial but fashionable question that is peculiar to East Asia: can modernity be overcome? It is argued that East Asia can be understood through the lens of modernity, and vice versa. Nowadays, modernity has become a global condition in both geographical and topological senses. It is not something to be overcome, but a condition that we all live in and should learn to live with, here and now.     

现代政治文化与民族国家治理

现代政治文化具有世俗性、自主性、开放性与融合性。民族国家治理是国家公共权力控制和引导政治、社会活动的运作行为。政治文化现代化与民族国家治理之间存在互动关系。现代政治文化对民族国家治理提供支撑与协调,民族国家的治理活动推动、引导政治文化现代化的发展。     

From nation-state to global society: the changing paradigm of contemporary sociology

This paper discusses the strong criticism by Elias against the nation-state paradigm in sociology. Elias pointed his attention on sociologists of the twentieth century but particularly criticizes the analytical model of Parsons (AGIL), which seems to him an abstract combinatory of variables (pattern variables) without any references in social contexts. The sociology in the twentieth century is an apologetic of nation-state and, in Parsons, of the hegemonic role of the United States in the world. In fact, during the twentieth century many authors (historians and sociologists) tried to overcome the nation-state paradigm in the social sciences. The author of the paper analyses the contribution of Toynbee, Braudel, C. Schmitt, Huntington, Wallerstein and Hard–Negri. These attempts are based on different unit analysis: the civilization and its clash in the case of Toynbee and Huntington, the world economy in the case of Braudel and Wallerstein, and power in the case of C. Schmitt and Negri–Hardt. The author appreciates these attempts but his conclusion is that the concept of global society can better serve as unit analysis for a construction of a new paradigm in the social sciences.     

换一个角度看民族理论：从“民族-国家”到“国家-民族”的理论转型

对待中国现行的民族理论和民族政策,很多学者都言必称“民族—国家”理论。对此,我们需要换一个角度来思考。国家和民族之间包括三种具体关系：民族与民族（民族—民族）的关系、民族与国家（民族—国家）的关系和国家与民族（国家—民族）的关系。就国家和民族的关系而言,在探讨民族地区和少数民族发展中,我们需要找回“国家”,并在民族理论中给予“国家”居于民族之上的位置。我们认为,在“国家—民族”自上而下关系框架下,国家的角色处于主导地位,而民族则是从属于国家。中央与民族地区和少数民族之间的关系,是通过从中央到地方的“官本位”的“分级管理”“属地管理”和“分类管理”等一系列制度化的行政管理体系和实际运作机制来实现的。     

Civic-secular and ethnic nationalisms as bases of the nation-state: multiculturalism at the crossroads? 1

The dominant Eurocentric paradigm of the nation and the nation-state was premised on western historical experience that was indigenous to the west but claimed universality for the rest. Many post-colonial countries, particularly those that went through national liberation struggles, like India and China, with multi-ethnic mobilisations, established sovereign states. The nationalist leaders claimed the unity of nationhood for their culturally diverse countries (states), with their millennia-deep civilisational identity, compelling a new discourse on the untenability of the classic Eurocentric paradigm. The second development witnessed the inevitable cultural heterogenisation of the western countries premised on the expansion of the (immigrant) labour market through an ever-enveloping regime of economic liberalisation and world trade. The catharsis of the invasion of cheaper labour from culturally diverse countries, often native-displacing, resulted in western countries attempting to accommodate the emerging changing reality in the context of mono-cultural nations through the concept and policy of multiculturalism. In spite of this, western countries have been witness to intercultural violence, racial discrimination and threats of home grown terrorism. The paper seeks to distinguish between ‘pluralism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ and argues for a reformulation of the concept of the nation-state that will have greater applicability across states.     

人类学眼光：从斐济历史看民族国家和新殖民主义——约翰·凯利教授夫妇访谈录

从人类学眼光看民族国家和新殖民主义是学界近来的前沿动向之一。通过对芝加哥大学和瓦萨大学的人类学家凯利夫妇的专访,以斐济个案为例,呈现了与此相关的问题和观点。文中论及的区域虽集中于南亚和环太平洋群岛国家与地区,但对反观中国问题不无借鉴意义。     

WHAT IS THE MULTITUDE?

Nicholas Brown and Imre Szeman continue their conversation with Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. (See ‘The Global Coliseum: On Empire’ in Cultural Studies, 16.2, (March 2002), p. 177–192). In this new interview they press the authors of Empire and Multitude on questions that have arisen both out of their own involvement with the theoretical issues generated by Empire and from new areas opened up by Multitude. Why is the multitude not a class? How can the unity of a political project be maintained in the multiplicity of the multitude? Is democracy still a project for the future? Can a political subject constitute itself outside the structure of sovereignty? In other words, what is the multitude?