丁学良:华人社会里的西方社会科学

——误解的三个根源* 
选择字号:   本文共阅读 10700 次 更新时间:2004-09-09 00:18:13

进入专题: 社会科学  

丁学良 (进入专栏)  

  [vii]

  

  然而在相对的意义上,至少我们可以说,韦伯的bureaucracy概念与西方现代民主制下的bureaucracy制度,存在着原则上的一致性,而与中国大陆的bureaucracy实体,连原则上都是对立的。西方的中国问题研究者造就觉察到这个原则的差异,比如就“政治上严守中立”这个韦伯极强调的rational(合理性的或理性化)属性而言,就完全无法应用到共产党领导的国家去。因为所有这些曾经存在过或依旧存在的国家的宪法都规定,bureaucracy必须服从共产党的领导,其绝大多数成员必须是共产党员。正是出于对这些原则性差异的强烈感受,Ezra Vogel(傅高义)早在一九六○年代中期就发表过一篇文章,题目就是“Politicized Bureaucracy :Communist China”。在韦伯及其学派看来,“政治化的公务员”这个概念本身就是自相矛盾的、悖论的。傅高义的文章一开始就点明了西方概念与东方现实间的矛盾:

  

  In many Western states, there is an important distinction between the roles of the politician and the civil servant. The politician is a generalist concerned with the manipulation of power, with the balancing of interest groups, with the organizing and molding of opinion, and with major policy questions. Depending upon fluctuations in relative support, he is subject to rapid rise and fall in power. The political role does not necessarily constitute a career and sometimes is not even a full-tine occupational specialty.

  

  In contrast, the civil servant is expected to remain politically neutral. He does not ordinarily take an active part in political campaigning or make political utterance, and he is expected to be sufficiently insulted from political pressures that he can perform his duties under a variety of politicians of varying political views. He is in principle appointed and promoted on the basis of universalistic qualifications. His work is commonly delimited to certain specified tasks, and his line of work constitutes a career. He rises by orderly procedures, depending on vacancies in the organization and his relative seniority and qualifications.

  

  In Communist China, as in many other Communist countries, no sharp line divides the politician from the civil servant, All political leaders are simultaneously bureaucrats, and bureaucrats are not expected to be politically neutral; even if they are not party members they are expected to be devoted to the Communist cause and to specific policies as well. Even in Western countries the top-level bureaucrat may be simultaneously a politician and a bureaucrat, but in China this mixture of politics and civil service penetrates the official hierarchy from the top to the bottom.[viii]

  

  简言之,要使韦伯的上述bureaucracy论述被中国内地大学生们自然地接受,他们就得要具备这样的生活经验:绝大多数的政府官员(即除最高层之外)不涉及政治。对政府官员的任职、考核、升降,如同对待汽车驾驶员或医务人员一样,是技术性的。没有这样的存在经验的前提,把韦伯的理论拿上讲坛,只会引起持续的困惑和误解。这恰恰是笔者所见:当我讲到“韦伯把bureaucracy的制度化界定为社会之现代化的必需方面”的时候,复旦大学的学生们坚定地反驳说:“完全错了!在我们国家,bureaucracy阻碍着现代化事业。”

  

  形成对比的是,令中国大陆大学生极难接受的韦伯的bureaucracy理论,笔者在香港的大学里讲授,学生们颇能理解和接受,尤其是像 bureaucracy的专业标准,bureaucracy的政治中立和效率这些内容。显然,自从一九七○年代香港推展廉政措施,到一九九○年代中期香港政党雏形出现的这段时间里,香港的公务员制度及其作为,确实为香港大学生对韦伯的理性主义的bureaucracy概念,提供了基本认可和接受的经验前提。

  

  这里就引发了一个相关的麻烦:如何翻译bureaucracy?象约定俗成的那样现成地译作“官僚(或官僚制)”行吗?似乎没这么便利!恰恰是由于在中国的政治传统里,“官僚”具有了太重的负面含义,当代研习和传播西方社会学的少数华人学者,在翻译bureaucracy时,刻意不去用早有的“官僚”这个词,而生造出“科层”这个新词。遗憾的是,“科层”这个译名虽有某些合理的成份,它却难以作为形容词使用,更重要的是它难以涵括自从Robert Merton以来,bureaucracy研究中十分强调的那些dysfunctional aspects。[ix]也就是说,任何一种译法,只能顾及一面,顾及不到多面。中国乃是“官僚制”的故乡,在中文的社会科学文献里处理bureaucracy尚且如此之难,遑论他者!

  

  例二。中国人因为历史经验与西方国家不同,把西方学术概念作几乎完全相反的理解和应用,最突出的例子大概要算是feudalism了(10)[x]。根据西欧中世纪史学权威F.L.Ganshof,

  

  The word is used by historians in two more or less distinct senses, Feudalism may be conceived of as a form of society possessing well-marked features which can be defined without difficulty. They may be summarized as follows: a development pushed to extremes of the element of personal dependence in society,With a specialized military class occupying the higher levels in the social scale:and extreme subdivision of the rights of real property:A graded system of rights over land created by this subdivision and corresponding in bread out1ine to the grades of personal dependence just referred to; and a dispersal of political authority amongst a hierarchy of persons who exercise in their own interest powers normally attributed to the State and which are often, in fact, derived from its break-up.

  

  This type of society,whether one call it “feudalism”or the“feudal regime”,was that of the tenth,eleventh,and twelfth centuries. It came into existence in France, Germany, the Kingdom of Burgundy-Arles and Italy, all of them states deriving form the Carolingian empire, and in other countries-England, certain of the Christian kingdoms of Spain, the Latin principalities of the Near East-which passed under their influence.

  

  In the second of the word, “feudalism” may be regarded as a body of institutions creating and regulating the obligations of obedience and service-mainly military service-on the part of a free man (the vassal) towards another free man (the lord), and the obligations of protection and maintenance on the part of the lord with regard to his vassal. The obligations of maintenance had usually as one of its effects the grant by the lord to his vassal of a unit of real property known as a fief. This sense of the word feudalism is obviously more restricted and more technical than the other. We can perhaps regard it as the legal sense of the word, while the first use covers mainly the social and political senses.(点击此处阅读下一页)

进入 丁学良 的专栏     进入专题: 社会科学  

本文责编:frank
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 社会学 > 社会学专栏
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/4099.html

10 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2019 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号 京公网安备11010602120014号.
易康网