汉学/历史学家眼中赵鼎新的《儒法国家》—Yuri Pines2016书评

From: 高行云 Sociological理论大缸 2019-09-03

Pines,Yuri. “Reivew of TheConfucian-Legalist State: A New Theory of Chinese History. By Dingxin Zhao.” Early China 2016.Vol.39. pp.311-320.

（下载地址：http://yuri-pines-sinology.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Review-of-Zhao-Dingxin-final.pdf ）

尽管《开放时代》搞了个书评专辑，但都是社科取向地来理解这本书。在英文学界的书评中，AJS的书评太略了，但Early China这本刊物，由耶路撒冷希伯来大学的汉学/历史学家尤锐（Yuri Pines）写的长篇...书评，来看这本书。

0.总的评价：好在哪？问题在哪？真正的问题在哪？

Admire：理论+跨界

I admire Zhao’sintellectual audacity, which allowed him to bring about novel theoretical perspectives on some of themeta-questions concerning traditional (and not only traditional) Chinesehistory. I admire his efforts to overcome disciplinary boundaries, shifting from hisfamiliar field of sociology to that of history. The book’s extensive footnotes and over fifty-page bibliography suffice to evaluate the degree of the author’s commitment to what he may have envisioned as his magnum opus.

Yet: 叙事有时太细得接近教科书的draft，对早期中国政治哲学有肤浅对待

Yet this admiration aside, one cannot but feel that Zhao missed anopportunity to create a more engaging book. The fault lies neither with histheoretical constructs nor with the inevitable problem of flattening historical accounts so as to fit the author’s grand thesis. Zhao’s real problem was allowing his fascination with a historical narrative to hijackhis book, turning it from what could have become an inspiring exploration of the inner logic of China’s history into something more akin to a draft of a historical textbook. Overburdeninghis text with unnecessary details and with—at times quite dubious—interpretations of historical events, Zhao missed agreat chance to engage a broader audience both within and outside the field of Sinology. To this problem of excessive historicity, oneshould add Zhao’s somewhat superficial treatment of early Chinese political philosophy. For the present reviewer these flaws are most regrettable, because I believe that Zhao’s theories deserve much more attention than the book will generate.

1. 总结：《儒法国家》讲了什么？

——历史地讲：中国历史是偶连/模式的、非目的论/有方向的；官僚制帝国发展早、有弹/韧性

This ambitious book promises to re-chart “overarching patterns of China’spast,” trying to show that “although [China’s] history is nonteleological and significantly contingent, it is also directional and patterned” (p. 5). The author’s principal goals are “to explain how and whyChina was unified and developed into a bureaucratic empire under the state of Qin” and “how it was that … the political-cultural structure of China that was institutionalized during the Western Han showed such resilience despite great changes in demography, ...” (p.6).

——理论地讲：四种社会权力资源+斯宾塞元素—>竞争与制度化—>政治和意识形态权力合流以压制军事和经济权力—>法家技术+儒家伦理

Zhao’s theoretical framework is based on amalgamation of MichaelMann’s identification of four sources of social power(economic, military, ideological, and political) with a “Spencerian element,” which allows him to identify “the dialectic interactions between competition and institutionalization as the most important driving force of social change” (p. 47). Zhao asserts that intense “competition and institutionalization” in the Eastern Zhou period—theformative age of China’s political structures—brought about “the Confucian-Legalist” state thatmatured by the Former Han period. This state is identified as “a system of government that merged political and ideological power,harnessed military power and marginalized economic power.” This peculiar system that employed Legalist techniques of rule under the overarching guidance of Confucian ethics was “so resilient and adaptivethat it survived numerous challenges and persisted up to the RepublicanRevolution in 1911” (p. 373).

——问题地讲：社会学家赵鼎新提出了15个问题，但既显示他希望向历史学家证明自己，但也显示了自己的gap.

A historical sociologist, be s/he as brilliantas Max Weber, S. N. Eisenstadt, or Michael Mann, will always face challengesfrom historians who dislike sweeping generalizations, and who are all too eager topoint out the instances in which grand theories do not work. Overcoming this historian’s mistrust is not easy: a sociologist may well feel compelled to enter the field of history and to master a sufficient number of details to repel attacks on his/her theoretical constructs.

This perhaps was the reason why ZhaoDingxin decided to engage Chinese history—particularly that of the Eastern Zhouto early Han—in depth. Yet it seems that Zhao become too absorbed, or rather distracted, by a variety of unresolved problems of China’s past, which caused him to address a plethora of minor issues that are of minimal, if any,relevance to his grand questions.

Fifteen questions on pp. 8-9—which include, ….By dedicating dozens of pages to these questions, Zhao not only demonstrated commendable advances in his historical knowledge, but also exposed severe—perhaps inevitable—gapsin this knowledge, weakening thereby the appeal of his bookin its entirety.

2. 章节分布：不平衡

The book is divided into four uneven parts.

Part I comprises an introduction and theoretical chapter

Part II,“The Historical Background of the Eastern Zhou Era”——讲了西周和东周

Part III “War Driven Dynamism in the Eastern Zhou Era”——the core of the book，尽管标题说的是东周，但讲到了前汉（206/202B.C.E–9 C.E.）。

Part IV (“The Confucian-Legalist State and Patterns of Chinese History”)——用84页写了2000年。

尤锐认为，显然赵鼎新主要关注的是东周时期，也认为t is also the period in dealing with which Zhao-sociologist tries to become Zhao-historian, with somewhat mixed results (see below).

3. 史料使用的批评

总的批评：不准确、肤浅、过时

Yet these insights aside, the historical narrative throughout thebook suffers from numerous inaccuracies, from superficial treatment of primaryand secondary sources, and from occasional resort to fairly outdated perspectives on early Chinese history.

3.1小例子：

Wrong transliterations (i.e., Zhongxing instead of Zhonghang 中行, p. 144, n. 2)

wrong names (Duke Yanruzi instead of Child Ruler Yan 晏孺子, p. 144, n. 5)

wrong dates (e.g., the alleged establishment of the so-calledJixia 稷下 academy in the fifth century B.C.E., p. 233)

wrong terms (“assassination” for execution, p. 148)

wrong understanding of official titles (such as identification ofscribes shi 史 as “historians,” p. 188, n.92)

3.2大例子：过度依赖《史记》以致出现和司马迁一样的问题，

——比如：

This results in entirely wrong claims, e.g., about the swift decline of the state of Yue 越 (which, actually, remained a major power well into the early fourth century B.C.E., p. 97),

or about the decline in interstate warfare after 453 B.C.E. (p. 169).

——还有对楚和秦关系的评论，司马迁的观点已经被考古证据批评了。

More annoyingly, the author perpetuates anold misinterpretation that the states of Chu 楚 and Qin 秦 originated from different cultures from that ofthe other major states of the Zhou 周 realm. This misunderstanding derives again froma selective reading of some of Sima Qian’s remarks, yet is completely refuted by archeological and paleographical sources, as well as by careful reading of transmitted texts. If the author had paid more attention to the books listed in his own bibliography (e.g., by Lothar von Falkenhausen, Martin Kern, orConstance Cook and John Major), such erroneous interpretations could have beeneasily corrected.

——对秦之所以兴起原因也过信司马迁的记录了

赵鼎新认为，秦兴是因为它的贵族弱、学邻居、束缚少。

the author asserts that the eventual centralization of Qin becamepossible because its aristocracy was intrinsically weak and because, havinginherited the territories of the Rong 戎 people, the Qin rulers were eager to learn fromtheir semipastoral neighbors, who had “simple governments, far less bound bythe complicated rituals and strong aristocracies typical of the Chinese states”(p. 255).

批评：

（1）秦与周关系：Qin inherited theheartland of the Zhou royal domain, which made it a custodian rather than arejecter of the Zhou culture

（2）秦保守还是不保守：thatQin’s material and written culture before Shang Yang’s 商鞅reforms display Zhouconservatism, rather than abandonment of ritual norms

（3）贵族到底怎么样：by thefifth century B.C.E., the state of Qin faced similar processes of aristocraticturmoil and potential disintegration that plagued most other contemporaneous states.

4. “儒法”使用的政治哲学评论？

——赵的观点：法=官僚制（其实？）、法家在战国独大（其实？）

Putting aside the problematic habitual usage of “school” labels to depict early Chinese thought, putting aside the author’s questionableidentification of the term fa 法 with “bureaucracy” (p. 185), and putting aside the disputable claim that “Legalism” became during the Warring States period “the prevailing ideology of rule with which no other ancient Chinese philosophy could compete” (p.193), I want to engage the core of Zhao’s argument.

——批评：

（1）赵书的最弱点之处：独立的社会精英问题之法禁儒允，反映国家—社会关系，有哲学讨论，也有历史现实，并且历史现实中还有中断（盐铁论），但被赵忽略了。

Zhao did not address the Confucian–Legalist debate about the desirability of an independent social elite. Ignoring this crucial polemic and its historicalrepercussions is arguably the weakest point inthe book.

…Confucian thinkers were unequivocal: neither theruler nor the state can create a superior man or rob him of this status. Membershipin the elite is determined by the superior men’s individual qualities alone.

…By contrast, thinkers as ShangYang and Han Fei 韓非 (d.233 B.C.E.)…An autonomous elite wouldendanger the ruler’s power, and by extension endanger society at large. Ratherthan discussing who does or does not deserve the designation “superior man,” theruler and his aides should create an order in which only those who benefit society and the state—primarily through military merit—should be promoted…

These debates were not a pure philosophical exercise; rather, they had a direct influence on the trajectory of state–society relations throughout Chinesehistory.In the Warring States period, Shang Yang’s ideas became exceptionally influential, particularly in the state of Qin…. Rank-holders were granted manifold economic, social, legal, and ritual privileges, and the upper segmentswere incorporated into officialdom. Moreover, as ranks were not fullyinheritable, the system allowed considerablesocial mobility under the overarching control of the state apparatus…. It epitomizes what Zhao Dingxin correctly identifies as the crux of the “Legalist”ideology.Itis almost inexplicable, then, that this crucial point has been entirely missed in Zhao’s monograph.

——盐铁论作为上述现实的discontinuity（略）

（2）尤锐还认为，赵鼎新的儒法国家分析，缺少了一环：

Zhao Dingxin largely glosses over this development, which actually could have been of primary importance for his general thesis. Nor does he notice a paradox of an ostensibly powerful state thatcontinued to operate within an institutional framework developed under the Qin,but which lost much of its erstwhile assertiveness and abilities.

e.g.商鞅起建立的the rulers to fully utilize human and material resources of theirstates and to monitor their subjects，反映在松柏村、纪南、尹湾等地的archive，但是——show that meticulous registration ostensibly continued, but alsothat it was manipulated by unscrupulous localofficials, who possibly conspired with localelite members…. all suggesttrickery aimed at decreasing the localities’ tax burden at the expense of thecentral government…. Although it preserved itsnominal power, the so-called Confucian-Legalist state became much more “Confucian,” i.e., much more accommodative of local elites and muchless able (and, normally, much less willing) to subjugate them.

尤锐最后给《儒法国家》作者的寄语~~

Yet I do hope that the author will not be discouraged by the current criticism, but rather undertake his project anew, preserving his novel understanding ina more coherent and more convincing way than in The Confucian-Legalist State. By doing so, Zhao Dingxin will serve both the Sinological community and the field of historical sociology in general.

（Sociological理论大缸第98期）

【96-98期专辑结束】

历史社会学书评三篇：第三波、比较分析和赵鼎新《儒法国家》

第96期 10+1学者群殴历史社会学第三波：评《RemakingModernity》

第97期 《Advances in 比较历史分析》书评（Haydu2017）

第98期【本次发布】

历史社会学合辑1

第65期彼得.伯克：比较史学vs.比较社会学=“更谨慎vs.太胆大”？

第64期沃勒斯坦：从社会学到历史社会科学：两个承诺及其落空

第63期历史社会学家真的【不引用】一手档案吗？对32本ASA获奖作品的分析

第60期百年《美国社会学学报》,只有54篇“历史”论文？！清单。

第59期社会科学历史学会主席演讲集（1978-2016）