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.

Master-scholars and Gentry: A Review of the Research on the Traditional Chinese Scholar-official in the Hydraulic Society

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.