帝国史社会学专栏01|荐读 许慧文新作《从帝国到共和国》

邀请了UCL的比较政治学博士生李立同学，开写帝国史社会学。

————

Vivienne Shue：从帝制到共和国：中国治理转型中的语境转型

文/Li Chin-Hsien

Vivienne Shue在2018年第3期 Journal of Chinese Governance发表了一文“Party-state, nation, empire: rethinking thegrammar of Chinese Governance” 大幅度引述historical sociology 中的“transfer from empire”学派理论，归纳当今中国的治理语境。其中不乏 Barkey， Burbank， Cooper，Kumar等“帝国社会学”大佬。

一、这篇文章的意义在于归纳 ‘template’ of governance under empire

One objective here is to apply the insights of thisnew historiography of empire to twentieth and twenty-first century China by drawing attention to certain features ofwhat I will refer to as the ‘template’ of governance under empire. We shallreflect once again, therefore, on the consequences of China’s singular experience of empire, imperial breakdown and passage to political modernity to reconsider what light selected aspects of thatunique history now may have to shed on how the country has been governed since1949.

二、归纳中国帝制奔溃后的两个现象：

1. 1.     帝国解体之后版图不变

And, despite the vastness of its domain and the diversity of its ecology, economy, and its peoples as assembled under the Qing,it made the passage from empire to nation without major permanent losses to itsterritorial boundaries.1

1. 2.     依然是单一制国家

,importantly also, the new state that then aroseto pilot the people through the second half of the twentieth century remained aunitary one: it proved not even necessary to reformat the realm into afederation.

假设1：中国奇特的完整变形

The hypothesis to be elaborated and advanced hereis that focusing firmly on all the far-reaching consequences of China’s oddly intact transfiguration—fromdynastic empire to republic, and then to people’s republic—will have valuablelight to shed on how the Communist Party has gone about governing the countrysince 1949. Imperialknowledges, sensibilities, and modalities of social ordering have nothung on in China merely as ‘legacies’ or quaint ‘vestiges’—sundry remainders of a vanished history,at best only tangentiallyrelevant now to the quickened pace of ‘real’ politics and of ‘modern’ society.

假设2-1：传统模式成为了我国领导的治理策略与技术，强大地构成了不断变化的政体本身，而并非从系统中被馈赠。

These modalities have, rather, entered into Party-state leaders’ strategic governing choices and techniques of rule, andinto the fields of opportunity that have been opened or closed to Chinesepeople, in ways so profound and, over time, so powerfully constitutive of theevolving polity itself, that we can be forgiven if sometimes we misperceivethem as natural givens in the way the system works.

假设2-2：无法抗拒的帝国模板：a defining component in the basic grammar of Chinese governance today

The template of empire, as argued here, however,was not ‘given’—not in the sense that it was inevitably passed forward throughhistory or was, in some culturalist fashion or other, just so irresistibly powerful that it could not be rejected, rethought, or remade. The template ofgovernance under empire instead endures—and remains a defining component in thebasic grammar of Chinese governance today—as a consequence of specific political choices made, practices adopted, and social trajectories pursued. Thesecond objective in this discussion, therefore, is to review and highlight someof those choices and practices, in hopes of encouraging others to explore formore.

假设3：重新思考现今中国的治理模式

A third objective of the analysis is, then, to furnish some brief illustrations of the kind of rethinking that would need tobe done to carry out a more systematic study of the template of governance under empire in the case of China. For this, specific attention will be given to selected techniques of rule associated with empire relating to scale andstrategy, to hierarchy and differentiation. The main aspiration, in whatfollows, is to indicate how a revised research agenda for evaluating contemporary political trends and processes—one more attentive to patterns of governance under empire—might be made to unfold for analytical advantage instudies of Chinese politics and governance today.

三、帝制中国时代

统治的特点

1.     领土大

2.     民族文化

3.     中国帝国特点：道德与体系的融合；游牧王朝的价值（清代）

the Siniccontext, as elsewhere, have striven to associate themselves with philosophiesand systems of morality and rectitude. However, by no means has every imperialformation in the Sinosphere been dominated by Han culture, or by Confucianthought. The nomadic ‘conquest dynasties’—Mongols and Manchus—have contributedat least as much to the governing repertoire, as have several other systems ofvalue and belief.

儒家文官精英与其他人在管理帝国方面的成就

Confucian scholar-bureaucrat-elite entrusted with compiling the official dynastic histories that have come down to us could not resist exaggerating their own roles and rationales in the running of affairs, we now know that countless other servantsof the throne with more practical talents and skills—artisans, manufacturers and commercial entrepreneurs, astronomers, engineers and mapmakers, and ofcourse the masters of military arts and of diplomacy—all these played parts inmanaging empire at least as great as the parts played by learned bureaucrats.

帝国的定义‘Empires are large political units, expansionist or with a memory of power extended over space, polities that maintain distinction and hierarchy as they incorporate new people’ （Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper）

四、帝国治理与民族国家的不同

民族国家的基础是单一领土内的单身人士构成一个独特的政治共同体。民族国家宣布其人民的共同性 - 即使现实更复杂 - 而帝国国家宣布多个人口的非等同性。--两种国家都是合并的 - 他们坚持要求人们受制度的统治 - 但民族国家倾向于使其境内的人同质化，排斥那些不属于的人，而帝国向外伸展，并且通常强制性地吸引其人在其规则下明确区别。帝国的概念假定政体内的不同民族将受到不同的统治。

Modern nation-states, unlike empires,are imagined as embracing one, clearly demarcated territory, with just onestate, presiding over one people, made up, in its essence, not of socialgroupings arranged into hierarchies, but of individual citizens possessing, ifnot absolutely equal, then at least broadly equivalent entitlements and responsibilities. Nation-states are not at liberty to govern plurally then,using different strokes for different folks. Nations must strive to be consistent, applying only one repertoire of the rule at a time, and to all.

帝制中国其实不是帝国，但大清很“像”帝国。

Although contemporary historians of China have reservations concerning at least some of its earlier dynasties, they do generally agree that the last dynasty, the Qing, did conform well to thisarchetype of empire as ‘governance over a domain in parts’.7清朝......故意为自己创造了一种独特的满族身份：帝国路线，宫廷贵族和军队。清朝使用了中国传统的官僚体制，并支持中国的士绅阶层，但它有时只是非常间接地统治帝国的边远地区，将蒙古人，西藏人和维吾尔人视为不同的民族。它试图阻止汉族移民到边远地区，甚至有时试图保护西南部的土著部落群体。（Li Chin-Hsien：大清是一个很像西方定义的普世帝国？至少大明更像民族王朝）

大清的统治目标：

Its goal…was not to respect the rights of minorities but to preserve orderacross the huge empire and to acquire the benefits of imperialism, such as the fighting prowess ofMongol allies and the spiritual ministration of Tibetan lamas. The emperorsought glory in the loyalty of distinct subject groups…. And [the Qing] had nocultural policies designed to unite the various peoples’

X 大清“帝国”的统治经验

Respecting and protecting separation,distinction and difference, on this reading, were techniques for keeping orderand means for enhancing the empire’s magnificence.

满族皇帝统治下对不同民族的统治的‘simultaneity’ (合璧)

‘That is, its edicts, its diaries,and its monuments were deliberately designed as imperial utterances in morethan one language (at a minimum Manchu and Chinese; very commonly Manchu,Chinese, and Mongolian; and after the middle eighteenth century frequently in Manchu,Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, and…‘Uigur’), as simultaneous expression ofimperial intentions in multiple cultural frames.

也就是说，它的法令，日记和纪念碑都被故意设计为不止一种语言的帝国话语（至少满族和中国人;非常普遍的满族，中国人和蒙古人;十八世纪中期以后经常在满族，中国，蒙古语，藏语和......“维吾尔语”，作为多元文化框架中帝国意图的同时表达。

Each formally written language used represented a distinct aesthetic sensibility and a distinct ethical code. Inthe case of each language, the emperor claimed both, as the enunciator and theobject of those sensibilities and those codes. The separate grammars must, inthe end, have the same meaning—the righteousness of the emperorship’. On this understanding, the multilingual practices of Qing emperorship revealed, to itssubjects, the transcendence of the ruler’s virtue, which applied to all.

不仅仅是实用性问题。每种使用的正式书面语言都代表了独特的审美情感和独特的道德准则。在每种语言的情况下，皇帝都声称，作为这些敏感性和那些代码的发音者和对象。最终，单独的语法必须具有相同的含义 - “皇帝的正义”。在这种理解下，清朝皇帝的多语言实践向其主体揭示了适用于所有人的统治者美德的超越性.

五、帝国至国家的转轨

汪晖：“中国学者现在必须面对的真正问题是”如何分裂？帝国/民族国家二元化.

我认为汪晖意思是我们需要找到方法来定义和分析两者，帝国和国家，不要认为它们是相互排斥的。如何承认帝国和现代民族国家的模板，虽然在概念上可能永远处于紧张状态，但可能已经变得分层，可以说，交织或混合 - 甚至可能融合在政治词汇和特定的治理实践中国的案例。

empire and nation, that do not assume them to be mutually exclusive. Ways to acknowledge that the templates of empireand of the modern nation-state, while conceptually perhaps forever in tension,may yet have become layered, so to speak, interwoven or mixed—even fused perhaps—within the political vocabularies and governing practices of particularstate cases.

二元认识的目的：

我认为在中国的现代国家实践和统治模式中发现的混合性并不是以任何方式剥夺其现代民族地位。相反，……。

“欧洲历史学家现在已经有了一个相当明确的共识，即民族国家的理想典型概念 - 作为一种文化和政治上自觉和统一的社区生活在一个统一的宪法和法律秩序之下 - 在历史上，基本上是一个萧条.13。狄金森继续说道，引用历史社会学家克里斯汗库马尔2006年关于帝国和国家近期文学教训的精辟总结。 ”他指出，大多数欧洲国家都是“复合国家”;那些从一开始就不是复合材料的人通过征服而变得如此。这些事实表明，“我们习惯于在帝国与后来演变为民族国家之间进行思考”之间存在着“更紧密的联系”。事实上，'很多''民族国家''是迷你帝国'

For as European historian Edward RossDickinson has pointed out, in an especially rich overview of the literature upto 2008: ‘There is now a fairly clear consensus among European historians thatthe ideal-typical concept of the nation-state—as a culturally and politicallyself-conscious and unitary community living under a uniform constitutional andlegal order—is, historically, essentially a bust’. Dickinson goes on, citing historical sociologist Krishan Kumar’s 2006 ‘pithy summary of the lesson of therecent literature on empires and nations’. Most European nations, he observed,originated as ‘composite states’; and those that were not composites from thebeginning became so through conquest. These facts suggest ‘a closer connection than we are accustomed to thinking between empire and what later evolved into the nation-state’. In fact, ‘Many ‘‘nation-states’’ … are mini-empires’.

然而，正如库马尔的总结所暗示的那样，欧洲国家制造中一个国家理想的大部分缺失或偏离都与整个国家社会的同质性缺陷有关。

1911-1949 中国转变：尝试与浪漫主义

1949年中共最终胜利以来，经过精心策划，有目的的政治工作，召唤，描绘和重申中国不同地区和人口的理想统一 - 塑造和确保令人垂涎的，更完美的民族和谐程度 - 不得不成为党国使命的一个突出特点。

六、现代中国的国家治理语境

中国共产党建立之初who were participants in local study groups that met inseveral of the larger cities of east and central China, and who shared ‘anideology of action’.

Federal forms of state organizationrest on the essentially democratic principle that sovereign authority rests inthe people themselves; but that, through agreed on regimes of representation,that authority can be aggregated and propelled upward, to governing bodies atintermediate and central levels. In a unitary state, by contrast, sovereignauthority rests at the central level; but, through the delegation of powers, itcan be made to flow downward, through intermediate to lower levels ofgovernance.

通过商定的代表制度，该权力可以汇总并向上推进到中级和中央的理事机构。相比之下，在统一的国家，主权权力属于中央层面;但是，通过权力下放，可以通过中间到较低的治理水平向下流动。

帝国：国家政治权威的源头集中在一个相对较小的群体手中：一个统治精英既选择了血统和血统，又选择了他们特有的技能和美德.

the fount of national politicalauthority had been concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group: a rulingelite chosen both on the basis of bloodlines and ancestry and for theirparticular proven skills and virtues.

中华人民共和国：……。关键管理职位的选择将根据已证明的血统与能力和忠诚度的标准进行.

deliberately tight merger of thevictorious revolutionary Party with supreme state power at the top, a not dissimilar elite configuration was set to emerge; selections for key governingposts would be made on criteria combining proven pedigree with competence andloyalty.

不同与相同之处：政治权威来自中国的中心，并通过国家行政的等级制度下放，中心永远保留了根据需要重新安排的权力。然而，在清朝时期，当中央话语在低层次，低层次的不同社区向下和向外播放时，他们可能仍然需要一种翻译成多种语言，可以说，在它们被解释之前并收到回复。通过一系列定位的习语和价值体系进行陈述，谈判和中介，在单一国家的实践中仍然是必要的组成部分，即使在现在的中国党国的技术统治中也是如此。

注：由于众所周知的原因，所以对于当代中国分析的摘录，有省略。

链接：