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 10570 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)  

  

  

  Feudalism in its narrow sense, meaning the system of feudal and vassal institutions, we also, and to an even greater degree than feudalism in its broad sense, proper to the states born of the break-up of the Carolingian empire and the countries influenced by them.[xi]

  

  以上的概述是历史细节的,描绘的是社会的和法律方面的具体特征。另一位中古西欧史学权威J.R. Strayer更着重于政治结构,给Feudalism作了如下描述性的总结:

  

  The first descriptions of feudalism,then,were derived from a study of the medieval po1itical structure. This is still the place to turn,for as we Shall see,it is here,and here alone,that we find the sharply de fined characteristics which make it possible to distinguish feudalism from other patterns of social organization…

  

  Feudalism appeared first and developed most completely in Western Europe between 800 and 1200...When we look at the political situation in Western Europe in this period,there are three things that Strike us. First,there is a fragmentation of power. Over much of Western Europe the country is the largest effective po1itical Unit,and in some places even the country has Splintered into small,autonomous lordships .Moreover,even in these small districts no single rulers has a monopo1y of po1ical authority There are rights of jurisdictions and administration which are held as hereditary possessions by lesser lords. There may be enclaves within a country or a barony in which the count of baron has no authority at all.

  

  Second,this fragmented political Power is treated as a private possession. It can be divided among heirs,given as marriage portion, mortgaged,bought and sold. Private contracts and rules of family law determine the possessors of judicial and administrative authority. Public power in private lands is accepted as a normal and inevitable arrangement;no one considers it peculiar or undesirable.

  

  Third,a key element in the armed forces-heavy-armed Calvary-is secured through individual and private agreements. Knights render military service not because they are citizens of a state or subjects of a king,but because they or their ancestors have promised to give this service to a lord in return for certain benefits. These benefits may range from mere sustenance in the lord's household to the grant of estates,villages,and even some rights of governments. Increasingly, the grant of land comes to be the normal way of securing the services of a knight, but other arrangements are always possible .The essential point is that military service is provided through a series of private contracts between the lord and his men,To sum up,the basic characteristics of feudalism in Western Europe are a fragmentation of political authority,public power in private hands。And a military system in which an essential part o the armed forces is secured through private contracts. Feudalism is a method of government, and away of securing the forces necessary to preserve that method of government.[xii]

  

  由以上的概括性论述可见,西方史学文献中的feudalism指称的是那种大大小小的“独立王国”林立的政治和社会状态。中国老一辈的翻释家在译这个概念的时候,想起中国在战国以前的时代王者以爵土分封诸侯而使之建国于封定之区域的情形,所以就用古语“封建”来译它。“封建者”,“封土建国”也。这个翻释是基本切合的。

  

  问题主要出在本世纪二十年代以马克思为名(因为马克思本人反对这么做)的教条主义意识形态从俄国传入中国后造成的观念大混乱。当马克思在描述西欧历史发展的脉络时,他用feudalism来指称介乎于古典罗马时代和现代资本主义之间的社会生产关系。他心目中的 feudalism,当然是西欧从公元八世纪到十四世纪的那种社会结构。所以,马克思本人对“封建制度”的定义基本上还是沿习近代西方学术界的主流用法。而且他特别声明:他所勾勒的“ancient,feudal,and modern bourgeois modes of production…as progressive epochs in the economic formation of Society”,[xiii]只适合于西欧,并不能套在其他区域。It is “both honoring and shaming him too much” to “metamorphose his historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path every people is fated to tread,whatever the historical circum-stances in which it finds itself.”[xiv]

  

  可是,马克思之后的教条主义者们坚持把西欧历史演进的轨迹套在俄国、中国和世界的各个角落。他们的逻辑很简单:既然二十年代的中国还不是资本主义的,那么,它一定是马克思图表上资本主义以前的那种社会形态——封建主义的。用斯大林的教科书名言来表达,就是:“原始公社制度恰巧是由奴隶制度所替代,奴隶制度恰巧是由封建制度所替代,封建制度恰巧是由资产阶级制度所替代,而不是由其他某一制度所替代。”[xv]于是从1912年起,俄国布尔甚维克党的领导人就在文章和文件中,反复给当时的中国社会定性为“半封建的”。 不言而喻,在这个“半封建的”状态之前,当然曾有过完全封建的时期。[xvi]从这时起,被俄国人教条主义化了的“四个阶段”历史发展图式,就逐渐地成为中国学术界的正统。不计其数的学者为着在中国历史上划出“封建主义阶段”的起止点而绞尽脑汁,因为,除了在先秦时期中国社会有过类似封建主义的特徵外,实在是很难在以后的中国历史上找到如同西欧中世纪的那种社会结构和政治制度了![xvii] 当代绝大多数的中国出版物把自东周以降直至清末的中国称为“封建主义”,其实,被教条的马列主义者称作封建时期的这段历史,其政治和社会结构,恰恰正是“封建制度”的对立面——中央集权的官僚制度 (centralized bureaucratic system)!教条的马列主义者错搬误用“封建制度”概念,给有关中国历史发展的研究,特别是为甚么中国没有能够发展出资本主义这个问题的研究,造成无穷的遗害!因为汗牛充栋的比较社会学和比较史学研究揭示:现代资本主义制度之所以在西欧兴起,政治和社会结构方面的基本原因就在于,西欧中世纪生活在封建主义的状态之中。这种分权的结构较之中央集权的官僚体制,更有利于新的经济组织和生活方式的发展。在欧美之外,受到工业化西方的冲击而最早作出成功的现代化反应的,是日本,这于日本的藩制之封建主义结构密切相关。近代前中国虽然在很多方面优越于近代前日本,受到工业化西方的冲击也更早,却屡次改制失败,多被过于集权的中央官僚制所窒息。这方面的详细西文索引,读者可参阅本文第16-17注所引著作,笔者在别处(见注1首本书第57-70页)也有概括,此处不再转述。

  

  简言之, “封建制度”和“中央集权官僚制度”是一对对立的概念,前者指的是政治、经济、军事权力和公共权威四处分散的社会结构,后者指的是政治、经济、军事权力和公共权威高度集中的“一元化”社会结构。教条主义的马列主义及受其误导的芸芸众生,在用“封建制度”来指称秦汉以降的中国社会的时候,正好弄了个张冠李戴!这类概念混淆的讨论,延续甚久,影响极深,从本世纪初一直到本世纪尾。 一九八○年代中后期在中国大陆席卷各社会人文学科的关于“传统文化的反思”、“中国封建社会超稳定结构的研究”、《河殇》争论等等,莫不与此内在相关。列出因“封建社会”概念的误读误导误用而产生的思想、认知和政治实践的阴错阳差,就差不多等于是撰写一部中国现代政治思想史!

  

  四 困难之方法论方面的根源

  

  有些西方社会科学家在概念建构方面的独特思维方法、逻辑和技巧为华人学生所不熟悉和不习惯,(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