鄒詩(shī)鵬

?

馬克思主義中國(guó)化與中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家的現(xiàn)代重構(gòu)

鄒詩(shī)鵬

摘要：馬克思對(duì)古典自由主義的批判，蘊(yùn)涵著對(duì)單一民族國(guó)家及其民族國(guó)家觀的批判，馬克思主義東擴(kuò)則帶來(lái)激進(jìn)的民族獨(dú)立與解放運(yùn)動(dòng)，包括帶來(lái)現(xiàn)代中國(guó)的獨(dú)立與解放。中國(guó)有著獨(dú)特的中華民族多元一體的格局及其傳統(tǒng)，因而其多民族國(guó)家建構(gòu)不可能延續(xù)前蘇聯(lián)模式。在近世以來(lái)的中國(guó)政治資源中，自由主義以及保守主義都有民族國(guó)家之訴求，中國(guó)化的馬克思主義則自覺(jué)地批判了這一訴求，努力實(shí)現(xiàn)中華統(tǒng)一多民族國(guó)家的現(xiàn)代重構(gòu)，并且在改革開(kāi)放之后依然得以延續(xù)，這使得中國(guó)不可能重蹈前蘇聯(lián)之覆轍?，F(xiàn)代中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家的重構(gòu)，既從屬于馬克思主義中國(guó)化的歷史邏輯，也是中華民族傳統(tǒng)現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)化的必然結(jié)果。

關(guān)鍵詞：馬克思主義中國(guó)化；民族國(guó)家；多民族國(guó)家；國(guó)族；民族主義

對(duì)于馬克思主義的一項(xiàng)歷史性回應(yīng)或結(jié)果，就是民族主義(實(shí)為“國(guó)族主義”)浪潮及其在全球展開(kāi)的以現(xiàn)代民族國(guó)家為基本政治單元的現(xiàn)代世界格局。大體說(shuō)來(lái)，西方現(xiàn)代民族國(guó)家體系是古典自由主義及社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義的政治結(jié)果，其拓展也可以看成西方世界對(duì)馬克思主義及其激進(jìn)社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)的反撥性回應(yīng)；東方社會(huì)主義民族國(guó)家，則是馬克思主義與東方民族各自獨(dú)特的民族解放、國(guó)家獨(dú)立及其現(xiàn)代化事業(yè)直接結(jié)合的結(jié)果，其間現(xiàn)代中國(guó)與前蘇聯(lián)又存在著重要區(qū)別?，F(xiàn)代中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家的重構(gòu)，從屬于馬克思主義中國(guó)化的歷史邏輯，且是馬克思主義中國(guó)化實(shí)踐的題中應(yīng)有之義，同時(shí)也是中華民族傳統(tǒng)現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)化的結(jié)果。這一歷史實(shí)踐，連同其略顯復(fù)雜的當(dāng)代境況，值得闡述。

一

馬克思的學(xué)說(shuō)在何種程度上與民族國(guó)家發(fā)生關(guān)聯(lián)，值得探究。馬克思對(duì)古典自由主義的批判，即包含了對(duì)單一民族國(guó)家構(gòu)想的批判。單一民族國(guó)家(single nation，single state)是合于古典自由主義及其早期資本主義的民族國(guó)家類型，單一民族國(guó)家理論體系，正是由亞當(dāng)·斯密初步開(kāi)展而在李斯特那里完成的。古典自由主義及其古典國(guó)民經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，即是單一民族國(guó)家觀的學(xué)說(shuō)及其學(xué)理支撐①。古典自由主義最初偏向于無(wú)政府主義，但在論證財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)、國(guó)民保護(hù)以及領(lǐng)土歸屬的過(guò)程中，逐漸形成單一的民族國(guó)家觀。對(duì)于亞當(dāng)·斯密而言，單一民族國(guó)家觀乃從民族到國(guó)家的直觀想象；對(duì)于穆勒與馬志尼而言，則是政治國(guó)家對(duì)民族的自覺(jué)規(guī)定(其間歐洲各國(guó)又有差異)。前者只是族群國(guó)家(ethnic nation)，后者則是民族國(guó)家(nation state)框架下的民族自覺(jué)及其自治，盡管在現(xiàn)代世界史上，族群國(guó)家與民族國(guó)家之間一直處于難分難舍且艱難的結(jié)合地帶(其中，族群國(guó)家與民族國(guó)家各自理?yè)?jù)迥異，前者是族群的自然且前現(xiàn)代式的集聚，后者則是國(guó)族的集聚與社會(huì)動(dòng)員)。而且盡管“族群國(guó)家的思想往往孕育著悲慘事件諸如人口遷徙、領(lǐng)土瓜分和種族清洗的種子”②，但是，在民族國(guó)家的形成過(guò)程中，族群國(guó)家實(shí)際上被民族國(guó)家所默認(rèn)，并不加分辨地形成所謂單一民族國(guó)家觀。而單一民族國(guó)家觀，同時(shí)也成為當(dāng)時(shí)保守的國(guó)家主義及其歷史主義的現(xiàn)成觀念。18世紀(jì)末至19世紀(jì)初，英法“先進(jìn)國(guó)家”大體都經(jīng)歷了從普遍化的世界主義向國(guó)家主義的轉(zhuǎn)變，而“落后”的德國(guó)所表現(xiàn)出來(lái)的觀念論探索，有其實(shí)實(shí)在在的客觀精神，即“國(guó)族精神”或“民族精神”的自覺(jué)——一種最后由俾斯麥實(shí)現(xiàn)出來(lái)的國(guó)家精神。歐洲先進(jìn)國(guó)家的現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)變經(jīng)歷了由此前激進(jìn)的社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)(啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)算是其中溫和的一種，激進(jìn)民主主義及共產(chǎn)主義運(yùn)動(dòng)乃其典型)到保守的民族國(guó)家觀再到擴(kuò)張的帝國(guó)主義的轉(zhuǎn)變，在這一向海外持續(xù)擴(kuò)張的殖民化世界地理空間中，民族國(guó)家與帝國(guó)主義合為一體，即“民族帝國(guó)主義”。

①參見(jiàn)[英]埃里克·霍布斯鮑姆：《民族與民族主義》，李金梅譯，上海：上海人民出版社，2007年，第32頁(yè)。

②[英]莫迪默等著：《人民·民族·國(guó)家》，劉泓等譯，北京：中央民族大學(xué)出版社，2009年，第145頁(yè)。

馬克思顯然反對(duì)本質(zhì)上已經(jīng)資本主義化的民族國(guó)家觀。馬克思要求以人類社會(huì)并通過(guò)將無(wú)產(chǎn)階級(jí)確定為歷史主體，進(jìn)而取代市民社會(huì)、階級(jí)以及民族。馬克思的未來(lái)社會(huì)構(gòu)想，顯然不屬于民族國(guó)家所厘定的古典自由主義框架。古典自由主義所確定的，本質(zhì)上是自由主義的民族主義。這一觀念的核心理?yè)?jù)看起來(lái)是這樣的：“在鞏固民族理想的同時(shí)并不無(wú)視其他的人類價(jià)值觀念——民族的理想應(yīng)該依據(jù)這種人類價(jià)值來(lái)衡量。這個(gè)過(guò)程的結(jié)果是：對(duì)于合法的民族目標(biāo)以及追求整個(gè)目標(biāo)的手段的重新厘定?！?[以色列]耶爾·塔米爾：《自由主義的民族主義》，陶東風(fēng)譯，上海：上海譯文出版社，2010年，第74頁(yè)。然而，在西式民族國(guó)家相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的實(shí)現(xiàn)過(guò)程中，卻是古希臘式城邦對(duì)外邦的優(yōu)越感以及城邦中自由民對(duì)奴隸的“自由權(quán)力”之剝奪的再現(xiàn)，并且?guī)в鞋F(xiàn)代帝國(guó)主義的歷史本質(zhì)，因而愈是單一的民族國(guó)家，就愈是激化新的民族矛盾及其種族沖突，而保守主義顯然越來(lái)越難以“兜住”被壓迫、被剝削民族反抗西式民族帝國(guó)主義、尋求民族獨(dú)立解放的“底”。實(shí)際上，在亞當(dāng)·斯密及李斯特等借用民族國(guó)家的“門(mén)檻原則”所強(qiáng)化的地域的民族國(guó)家，本身已經(jīng)隱含著民族沙文主義指向，這一在很大程度上與自由主義的民族主義初衷相違拗的傾向，在資本主義的隨后發(fā)展中變成了現(xiàn)實(shí)。

馬克思主義的興起，本身就表明此前單一民族國(guó)家觀的不可能。但馬克思的人類社會(huì)構(gòu)想顯然反對(duì)無(wú)政府主義，也拒斥空想共產(chǎn)主義，因而又蘊(yùn)含著相應(yīng)的民族國(guó)家形式。在現(xiàn)實(shí)的意義上，馬克思主義蘊(yùn)含或默認(rèn)了多民族國(guó)家。在馬克思那里，民族雖然也是一個(gè)社會(huì)實(shí)體，但不像階級(jí)、國(guó)家那樣只是政治性的社會(huì)實(shí)體，民族還有其人類學(xué)的固有屬性及其多樣性。馬克思顯然是重視民族多樣性的。正是基于這一點(diǎn)，馬克思十分關(guān)注東方社會(huì)獨(dú)特的發(fā)展道路，強(qiáng)調(diào)應(yīng)尊重東方民族對(duì)于現(xiàn)代發(fā)展道路的自主選擇。馬克思對(duì)西方資產(chǎn)階級(jí)民族的批判，直接蘊(yùn)含著對(duì)東方民族的價(jià)值關(guān)懷。

馬克思雖然沒(méi)有對(duì)“多民族國(guó)家”作出論證，但馬克思對(duì)古典自由主義與保守主義的雙重批判，即蘊(yùn)含了對(duì)單一民族國(guó)家觀的批判，進(jìn)而蘊(yùn)含著多民族國(guó)家的合理建構(gòu)。在馬克思那里，歐洲民族國(guó)家與歐洲資產(chǎn)階級(jí)具有同構(gòu)性，因而馬克思對(duì)資產(chǎn)階級(jí)歷史性質(zhì)及其局限性的判定，實(shí)際上蘊(yùn)含著對(duì)歐洲自由主義的民族國(guó)家的批判。在馬克思的人類解放構(gòu)想中，人類社會(huì)中的被壓迫的階級(jí)及民族，才是未來(lái)世界的歷史主體。在這樣的視野中，馬克思把非西方民族看成是當(dāng)然的解放主體。在現(xiàn)代民族國(guó)家的建構(gòu)上，馬克思主義在西方與東方呈現(xiàn)出不同的歷史效應(yīng)。對(duì)西方而言，馬克思主義之后是西方自由主義的多民族國(guó)家體系的建立以及西方中心主義的持續(xù)鞏固，在那里，馬克思主義所批判的資產(chǎn)階級(jí)國(guó)家，在汲取馬克思的批判資源并建立起西方現(xiàn)代多民族國(guó)家體系時(shí)，也同馬克思主義相疏離且對(duì)立起來(lái)。對(duì)東方而言，馬克思主義的人類解放思想成為落后民族國(guó)家實(shí)現(xiàn)民族解放與國(guó)家獨(dú)立的當(dāng)然理?yè)?jù)與指導(dǎo)思想，因此，東方世界的現(xiàn)代民族主義運(yùn)動(dòng)及其多民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)，與馬克思主義更具親和性，馬克思主義運(yùn)動(dòng)由此實(shí)現(xiàn)其東擴(kuò)進(jìn)程。中國(guó)現(xiàn)代民族國(guó)家的重構(gòu)，顯然從屬于這一歷史進(jìn)程，并構(gòu)成了其中的典范。

二

馬克思主義中國(guó)化的歷史，直接體現(xiàn)為中國(guó)現(xiàn)代多民族國(guó)家的重構(gòu)。

現(xiàn)代中國(guó)之所以拒斥自由主義并選擇馬克思主義，是由中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)、近代中國(guó)的世界處境以及現(xiàn)代中國(guó)國(guó)族建構(gòu)的歷史任務(wù)所決定的。中國(guó)不同于歐洲，歐洲在文化傳統(tǒng)、地緣、地理、人口以及政治上具有多個(gè)中心，因而“分”是基本傳統(tǒng)，“合”雖常成一時(shí)之態(tài)但終究是理想。近世以來(lái)的工商業(yè)及資本主義更是多個(gè)民族國(guó)家的分治格局，自威斯特法倫合約之后，整個(gè)歐洲逐漸步入民族國(guó)家傳統(tǒng)，至19世紀(jì)中期以后形成西方民族國(guó)家格局。在西方民族國(guó)家與自由主義之間存在著一種互動(dòng)關(guān)系。作為去封建王朝及其教權(quán)而誕生的民族國(guó)家，本身就是世俗國(guó)家及其王權(quán)的形式；民族國(guó)家同時(shí)也是市民社會(huì)的實(shí)現(xiàn)形式，市民社會(huì)離不開(kāi)民族國(guó)家，吉登斯則干脆將二者等同起來(lái)。由市民社會(huì)而形成的自由主義顯然進(jìn)一步鞏固了民族國(guó)家，因而伴隨著古典自由主義的形成，也確定了民族國(guó)家的基本傳統(tǒng)，即多個(gè)或單一民族國(guó)家或多民族國(guó)家形成的歐洲民族國(guó)家的分治格局。

中國(guó)則是以中原農(nóng)業(yè)文明為中心、以儒家為文化主干、以漢民族輻射和涵化周邊民族同時(shí)共享中華民族大家庭的東方古老國(guó)家。這是一個(gè)以中華傳統(tǒng)為核心認(rèn)同、以“和”與“合”為核心理念的文明體，其政治意識(shí)中包含著古老的社會(huì)主義傳統(tǒng)而不是自由主義及資本主義傳統(tǒng)。在中華民族認(rèn)同中，沒(méi)有也不可能接受所謂單一民族國(guó)家觀念。以西方民族國(guó)家為主導(dǎo)的近代世界，不可能給中國(guó)“分享”資本主義的外部空間，不可能任由中國(guó)選擇自由主義式的多民族國(guó)家建制，反而通過(guò)武力與資本的強(qiáng)力輸出，使中國(guó)淪為西方及其帝國(guó)主義進(jìn)行海外掠奪與擴(kuò)張的殖民地及半殖民地。因此，中國(guó)現(xiàn)代民族國(guó)家的重構(gòu)，一方面須順應(yīng)世界文明之大勢(shì)，另一方面注定不能依賴于西方資本主義及其民族國(guó)家建立的既有路徑。事實(shí)上，試圖以西式自由主義的民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)為典范的中國(guó)民族資產(chǎn)階級(jí)革命只能是不徹底的革命，無(wú)論單一民族國(guó)家還是自由主義的多民族國(guó)家，在中國(guó)現(xiàn)實(shí)歷史中都是不可能的。

自19世紀(jì)50年代起，伴隨歐洲民族國(guó)家體系的成熟，便是中國(guó)建立民族國(guó)家的焦慮。李鴻章曾斷定中國(guó)處于“三千年未有之大變局”，此焦慮也是題中應(yīng)有之義。面對(duì)西方列強(qiáng)之船堅(jiān)炮利及其分化圖謀，晚清不僅呈分崩離析之勢(shì)，而且逐漸分化為列強(qiáng)之殖民地。1902年，梁?jiǎn)⒊瑒?chuàng)造性地提出“中華民族”概念，以之為統(tǒng)一中國(guó)之“國(guó)族”概念，孫中山也對(duì)“國(guó)族”概念多有論述。但考察當(dāng)時(shí)中國(guó)知識(shí)界，多接受歐洲社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義及其種族主義。在此背景下，實(shí)是接受了單一民族(其中相對(duì)進(jìn)步的力量則接受了自由主義，但在社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義背景下，單一民族國(guó)家與自由主義又是合而為一的)。從有關(guān)文獻(xiàn)看，梁?jiǎn)⒊?包括康有為)已形成民族國(guó)家的自覺(jué)，其標(biāo)準(zhǔn)大體是西式民族國(guó)家，但已經(jīng)開(kāi)始注意到中國(guó)國(guó)族的特殊性。而且，同孫中山早期、鄒容、汪精衛(wèi)主張極端的單一民族國(guó)家相比，梁?jiǎn)⒊菍M族包容于中華民族之內(nèi)，坊間稱其為“大民族主義”也未嘗不可*從梁?jiǎn)⒊瑒?chuàng)造“中華民族”概念可以看出，他已經(jīng)意識(shí)到種族主義在分析民族時(shí)的局限。杜贊奇認(rèn)為：“雖然梁?jiǎn)⒊?jīng)反對(duì)過(guò)革命黨人狹窄的種族主義并把后者的‘小民族主義’與他自己的‘大民族主義’相對(duì)立，但他也并未能完全避免他所吸收的話語(yǔ)中的種族主義的理論基礎(chǔ)。進(jìn)化論的時(shí)間觀滲透在其歷史中，并尤為清楚地表現(xiàn)在如下論點(diǎn)中：沒(méi)有線性歷史的人民將會(huì)很快被擠出歷史舞臺(tái)，因?yàn)樗麄儫o(wú)法形成群體團(tuán)結(jié)對(duì)付來(lái)犯之?dāng)?。此外，梁?jiǎn)⒊敛粦岩芍挥邪追N人、雅利安人和黃種人(至少是潛在地)才擁有歷史。但梁氏并沒(méi)有斷言民族只能是單一種族的政體?！?[美]杜贊奇：《從民族國(guó)家拯救歷史：民族主義話語(yǔ)與中國(guó)現(xiàn)代史研究》，王憲明等譯，南京：江蘇人民出版社，2009年，第35頁(yè))。20世紀(jì)初中國(guó)流行的大漢族主義，與從域外簡(jiǎn)單接受社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義及種族主義是有直接關(guān)系的。誠(chéng)如杜贊奇所言：“世界性的社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義與共和革命的反滿政治共同制造出了一個(gè)純粹由漢族構(gòu)成的民族群體的理念?！?[美]杜贊奇：《從民族國(guó)家拯救歷史：民族主義話語(yǔ)與中國(guó)現(xiàn)代史研究》，第35頁(yè)。而且，由此強(qiáng)化的漢民族主義，同時(shí)也激起了少數(shù)民族的強(qiáng)烈的自我認(rèn)同與自覺(jué)意識(shí)，并在觀念上為現(xiàn)代中國(guó)的多民族問(wèn)題埋下隱患。

國(guó)民革命實(shí)質(zhì)上可以看成是在西式現(xiàn)代世界史狀況下建立民族國(guó)家的嘗試。這一嘗試最終沒(méi)有成功，究其原因，其一，西式民族國(guó)家不能直接引為現(xiàn)代中國(guó)民族國(guó)家的當(dāng)然理?yè)?jù)；其二，近代中國(guó)的世界境遇使其不可能成為獨(dú)立自主的民族國(guó)家；其三，中華民族的獨(dú)特的地緣地理、文化習(xí)俗及政治傳統(tǒng)，使其本不可能成為尤其受種族主義支撐的西式民族國(guó)家?，F(xiàn)代中國(guó)必須超越國(guó)民革命的邏輯，在更大的歷史邏輯及族群包容性中尋求多民族國(guó)家的建立與建設(shè)。正是在這樣的歷史境況下，作為內(nèi)在地超越西方資本主義及其民族國(guó)家觀、并蘊(yùn)含著非西方關(guān)懷的現(xiàn)代思想，馬克思主義成為中國(guó)現(xiàn)代多民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)的主體資源。

馬克思主義與社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義有著本質(zhì)的區(qū)別。盡管包含著階級(jí)及其階級(jí)斗爭(zhēng)的思想，但馬克思主義有著豐富的關(guān)于人類解放的追求、關(guān)懷與視野；社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義則是典型的歐洲中心主義，且不符合全球時(shí)代的人類共同要求，放任社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義，其結(jié)果必然是帝國(guó)主義及其殖民化，無(wú)法解決非西方社會(huì)的問(wèn)題。馬克思的階級(jí)分析方法特別表達(dá)為西方與非西方社會(huì)的壓迫與反抗關(guān)系，實(shí)有其世界歷史的機(jī)緣，也由此改變了世界歷史的既定邏輯，正如馬克思主義乃是對(duì)社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義的批判和遏制，并由此改變了西方現(xiàn)代思想的走向，馬克思的國(guó)民經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)批判實(shí)際上也是對(duì)民族國(guó)家的歷史批判，而合于馬克思的人類解放及其非西方關(guān)懷，歷史性地衍生為非西方多民族國(guó)家的獨(dú)立與解放。馬克思主義是通過(guò)俄國(guó)革命而傳入中國(guó)的?！笆赂锩苯⒘耸澜缟系谝粋€(gè)社會(huì)主義國(guó)家，也是第一個(gè)社會(huì)主義性質(zhì)的多民族國(guó)家。蘇聯(lián)通過(guò)馬克思主義及社會(huì)主義實(shí)現(xiàn)了多民族國(guó)家的整合，這成為包括中國(guó)在內(nèi)的社會(huì)主義國(guó)家的典范。但中國(guó)有自己的多民族整合傳統(tǒng)，歷史地說(shuō)，中國(guó)既不可能像近代歐洲那樣區(qū)分為各自獨(dú)立的民族國(guó)家體系，也不必像蘇聯(lián)那樣不得不通過(guò)建立加盟共和國(guó)，以緩解馬克思主義以及泛斯拉夫主義依然不能緩解的境內(nèi)民族矛盾。前蘇聯(lián)多民族的集聚實(shí)際上還是形式集聚與強(qiáng)力集聚，境內(nèi)諸民族之間的關(guān)系主要是現(xiàn)代以來(lái)集聚起來(lái)的政治共同體，俄羅斯帝國(guó)形成的民族國(guó)家，到列寧、斯大林集諸多民族國(guó)家的聯(lián)邦，其穩(wěn)定性同中國(guó)境內(nèi)諸族群因地域地理、人口流動(dòng)以及資源關(guān)系而長(zhǎng)期形成的依賴型的互動(dòng)關(guān)系，是不可同日而語(yǔ)的?，F(xiàn)代中國(guó)顯然通過(guò)社會(huì)主義進(jìn)一步鞏固和集聚了中華民族多元一體的傳統(tǒng)，這一過(guò)程是有機(jī)的，并且已經(jīng)成為現(xiàn)代中國(guó)諸民族團(tuán)結(jié)的基本資源與傳統(tǒng)。前蘇聯(lián)的分崩離析，很大程度上是其在激進(jìn)的社會(huì)主義實(shí)踐中過(guò)度利用、而反過(guò)來(lái)受制于民族主義的消極后果。在前蘇聯(lián)的政治實(shí)踐中，族群(ethnic)被直接解釋成了國(guó)族(nationality)，進(jìn)而不僅造成了“民族”概念的混亂，而且埋下了民族矛盾的種子*馬戎：《中華民族史與中華共同文化》，北京：社會(huì)科學(xué)文獻(xiàn)出版社，2012年，第111頁(yè)。。前蘇聯(lián)建立的聯(lián)邦實(shí)際上是“民族國(guó)家聯(lián)盟”，因而聯(lián)盟的垮臺(tái)即為民族國(guó)家的獨(dú)立創(chuàng)造了條件；然而，因聯(lián)盟中諸民族國(guó)家的境遇及其傳統(tǒng)又各各不同，這又反過(guò)來(lái)決定了其在新的轉(zhuǎn)型過(guò)程中的艱難，蘇東劇變之后這一地區(qū)持續(xù)不斷的民族紛爭(zhēng)，都是與此直接相關(guān)的。與此同時(shí)，近代中國(guó)的艱難轉(zhuǎn)變，實(shí)際上已造成國(guó)家民族認(rèn)同的薄弱與族群間矛盾的不斷加劇，靠國(guó)民革命援引的西式民族國(guó)家已經(jīng)難以實(shí)現(xiàn)現(xiàn)代中國(guó)國(guó)家民族的重構(gòu)。在這種情況下，中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨雖然也吸收了馬克思階級(jí)化的民族理論，但卻前所未有地完成了對(duì)域內(nèi)各民族的集聚，并在這一過(guò)程中避開(kāi)了簡(jiǎn)單模仿蘇聯(lián)式聯(lián)邦可能造成的麻煩。

現(xiàn)代中國(guó)選擇社會(huì)主義的多民族國(guó)家模式，顯然也經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)過(guò)程。一百年前，中國(guó)國(guó)勢(shì)漸衰、外強(qiáng)欺凌，且國(guó)內(nèi)各自為政、一盤(pán)散沙，當(dāng)時(shí)自由主義的民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)方略也曾頗有市場(chǎng)。事實(shí)上，在當(dāng)時(shí)的歷史條件下，盡管一些早期中共領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，也認(rèn)同自由主義的民族國(guó)家構(gòu)想或聯(lián)邦共和國(guó)的構(gòu)想，但是，隨著對(duì)中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)及現(xiàn)實(shí)的深入把握，隨著對(duì)馬克思主義的理論自覺(jué)，毛澤東等中共領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人越來(lái)越明確地意識(shí)到，應(yīng)以中華民族固有的多民族統(tǒng)一傳統(tǒng)為基礎(chǔ)，實(shí)現(xiàn)中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家的現(xiàn)代重構(gòu)；而立足于中國(guó)現(xiàn)代民族國(guó)家創(chuàng)立的歷史實(shí)踐學(xué)習(xí)并轉(zhuǎn)化馬克思主義，也成為馬克思主義中國(guó)化的當(dāng)然理?yè)?jù)。當(dāng)毛澤東在延安時(shí)期明確提出馬克思主義中國(guó)化時(shí)，即已經(jīng)形成了中華統(tǒng)一的多民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)的基本政治構(gòu)想。中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨所采取的“農(nóng)村包圍城市”以及“全民動(dòng)員”的戰(zhàn)略，包括革命道路的地理線路，完成了民族地區(qū)及其國(guó)民面向激進(jìn)的現(xiàn)代政治的啟蒙與觀念轉(zhuǎn)變，因而特別完成了民族地區(qū)的現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)變，相比于延續(xù)一個(gè)多世紀(jì)的族群分裂乃至于撕裂，這一貢獻(xiàn)難能可貴。實(shí)際上，通過(guò)確立先進(jìn)的階級(jí)與人民觀念，相對(duì)落后的民族地區(qū)的少數(shù)民族在很大程度上遺忘了所謂民族身份，進(jìn)而通過(guò)政治忠誠(chéng)顯現(xiàn)為國(guó)家忠誠(chéng)；而通過(guò)底層民眾的覺(jué)醒，中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨解決了民族地區(qū)普通民眾對(duì)人民共和國(guó)的認(rèn)同問(wèn)題。在此基礎(chǔ)上，新中國(guó)確立人民共和國(guó)政體而不是聯(lián)邦共和國(guó)政體，使這一構(gòu)想得以鞏固為政治制度。人民共和國(guó)對(duì)內(nèi)強(qiáng)調(diào)各族人民當(dāng)家作主、共生共榮，對(duì)外主張獨(dú)立自主，注重與廣大非西方世界及發(fā)展中國(guó)家結(jié)盟。新中國(guó)成立以后，隨著世界形勢(shì)的新變化，毛澤東適時(shí)提出了“三個(gè)世界”理論。在“三個(gè)世界”框架中，中國(guó)被定位為最大的發(fā)展中國(guó)家，這顯然更益于鞏固自身統(tǒng)一多民族國(guó)家的結(jié)構(gòu)及其穩(wěn)定團(tuán)結(jié)的局面?，F(xiàn)代中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)的實(shí)踐，創(chuàng)造性地發(fā)展和轉(zhuǎn)化了馬克思主義國(guó)家與民族理論，也發(fā)揚(yáng)了自身的多民族傳統(tǒng)，通過(guò)廣泛深入的社會(huì)動(dòng)員，推進(jìn)了諸民族面向現(xiàn)代中國(guó)的國(guó)族認(rèn)同，形成了民族團(tuán)結(jié)的局面，且使現(xiàn)代中國(guó)得以立身于世界民族之林。

三

改革開(kāi)放，無(wú)疑使現(xiàn)代中國(guó)的國(guó)族重構(gòu)進(jìn)入新的歷史時(shí)期，面臨新的問(wèn)題。中國(guó)改革開(kāi)放的外部空間，正是新自由主義的全球空間。新自由主義依托于資本、技術(shù)、軍事以及地緣等優(yōu)勢(shì)，強(qiáng)化了其帝國(guó)性質(zhì)，與此同時(shí)也帶來(lái)全球民族國(guó)家體系新一波的震蕩。在新一輪文明對(duì)話及博弈中，西方實(shí)際上延續(xù)并且加劇了對(duì)東方世界的單一民族國(guó)家的意識(shí)形態(tài)。一個(gè)正在快速崛起的東方大國(guó)，呈現(xiàn)出某種對(duì)外部世界相對(duì)無(wú)害的分化乃至分裂狀態(tài)，顯然是一些西方右翼力量所愿意看到的。西方一些右翼政治勢(shì)力，顯然在利用民族問(wèn)題，加大對(duì)中國(guó)的分裂力度，域內(nèi)外的恐怖主義也呈抬頭之勢(shì)。原因在于，中國(guó)在經(jīng)歷三十多年快速發(fā)展的同時(shí)，也積累了一些矛盾，其中既包括民族本身的矛盾，也有其他如經(jīng)濟(jì)、民生、宗教、社會(huì)問(wèn)題在民族問(wèn)題上的折射與反映。

自由主義不可能成為中國(guó)的主導(dǎo)，但客觀地說(shuō)，自由主義對(duì)于推進(jìn)中國(guó)的現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)型還是發(fā)揮了一些積極的且不可替代的作用，如市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)、民主法治建設(shè)、社會(huì)建設(shè)等等。況且，自由主義傳統(tǒng)本身也在發(fā)展，比如，與社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義、種族主義及早期資本主義時(shí)代的古典自由主義相比，19世紀(jì)中葉以后直到今日，自由主義經(jīng)新自由主義向新古典自由主義轉(zhuǎn)化；而西式民族國(guó)家體系格局也在經(jīng)歷不斷的變化，不存在確定且固化的民族國(guó)家結(jié)構(gòu)(包括領(lǐng)土結(jié)構(gòu))，全球資本主義時(shí)代的民族國(guó)家更是經(jīng)歷和正在經(jīng)歷深刻的變化。中國(guó)并不自外于如此全球格局，因而需要恰當(dāng)應(yīng)對(duì)，以實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)家與社會(huì)的持續(xù)進(jìn)步。

(一)確當(dāng)理解現(xiàn)代中國(guó)作為國(guó)家民族(簡(jiǎn)稱“國(guó)族”)的建設(shè)與認(rèn)同。世界歷史時(shí)代，各民族國(guó)家的國(guó)族重構(gòu)是一個(gè)持續(xù)推進(jìn)和完善的過(guò)程，在全球化時(shí)代更是如此，作為發(fā)展中大國(guó)的中國(guó)的國(guó)族重構(gòu)，尤其如此。中國(guó)的國(guó)族重構(gòu)，必然要求完成從“天下”帝國(guó)向面向現(xiàn)代世界民族之林的多民族東方大國(guó)的轉(zhuǎn)變；而現(xiàn)代中華民族國(guó)家的重構(gòu)，必然要求實(shí)現(xiàn)諸民族面向國(guó)族的集聚。現(xiàn)代中國(guó)訴諸馬克思主義，完成了相對(duì)封閉狀態(tài)的國(guó)族認(rèn)同，并且成為長(zhǎng)達(dá)半個(gè)世紀(jì)的“冷戰(zhàn)”時(shí)代的資源，但是，面向開(kāi)放世界的國(guó)族認(rèn)同建構(gòu)，依然是迫切而嚴(yán)峻的任務(wù)。這樣的任務(wù)，必然是有機(jī)團(tuán)結(jié)而不是機(jī)械團(tuán)結(jié)，因而特別體現(xiàn)為制度建設(shè)。至于網(wǎng)絡(luò)化、跨國(guó)資本主義及其種種后民族國(guó)家或非民族國(guó)家觀念對(duì)多民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)的沖擊，也不容小覷。特別是在公正體制有欠完善的結(jié)構(gòu)中，全球化格局下的民族利益與國(guó)家利益，對(duì)中國(guó)而言總是大是大非的問(wèn)題。

國(guó)族建設(shè)是當(dāng)下中國(guó)國(guó)家建設(shè)的關(guān)鍵任務(wù)。國(guó)族建設(shè)的重心是國(guó)家精神*參見(jiàn)拙文《民族國(guó)家框架下的國(guó)家精神》，《哲學(xué)研究》2014年第7期。，其目的是達(dá)致國(guó)家認(rèn)同。客觀上看，改革開(kāi)放以來(lái)，我們?cè)谶@方面留有不少欠賬，也生發(fā)出很多問(wèn)題。如前所述，新中國(guó)較為成功地解決了革命邏輯下的國(guó)族集聚，并形成了階級(jí)化的民族理論傳統(tǒng)，但這一傳統(tǒng)能否并在多大程度上成為改革開(kāi)放和建設(shè)時(shí)期的民族理論資源，顯然是需要反思的。階級(jí)化的民族理論還是反映了一種矛盾與對(duì)立的民族關(guān)系，甚至默認(rèn)了漢民族與少數(shù)民族的“不平等關(guān)系”，因而在當(dāng)下不僅無(wú)益于解釋民族問(wèn)題，還會(huì)不時(shí)激化矛盾?？偟恼f(shuō)來(lái)，基于當(dāng)下社會(huì)治理實(shí)踐，我們認(rèn)為從社會(huì)理論而不是政治哲學(xué)層面發(fā)揮馬克思的階級(jí)分析方法，并吸收現(xiàn)代社會(huì)沖突理論等資源，將更有益處(茲不細(xì)述)。馬克思的階級(jí)分析方法并非一成不變，而是需要不斷發(fā)展與創(chuàng)新，階級(jí)化的民族理論話語(yǔ)也需要與中華民族傳統(tǒng)結(jié)合起來(lái)，與今日中國(guó)國(guó)家認(rèn)同狀況結(jié)合起來(lái)。與此同等重要的是處理好民族自覺(jué)與國(guó)家認(rèn)同的關(guān)系。由于諸多方面的原因，現(xiàn)代中國(guó)存在著國(guó)族認(rèn)同滯后于民族自覺(jué)的情形*參見(jiàn)拙文《現(xiàn)代中國(guó)的國(guó)族認(rèn)同與民族自覺(jué)》，《天津社會(huì)科學(xué)》2014年第1期。，這在一些區(qū)域、領(lǐng)域、職業(yè)以及年輕一代那里表現(xiàn)得十分明顯。當(dāng)然，這并非意味著認(rèn)同國(guó)家主義。全球時(shí)代的確存在著一定的民族國(guó)家式微傾向，但畢竟民族國(guó)家仍是全球時(shí)代國(guó)際政治的基本單元，而中國(guó)本質(zhì)上是秉承和平主義理念的多民族國(guó)家，是政治國(guó)家，因而必當(dāng)以恰當(dāng)方式發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的國(guó)家認(rèn)同與整合功能，基本的國(guó)家認(rèn)同仍然是不言而喻的。

(二)恰當(dāng)理解中國(guó)作為統(tǒng)一多民族國(guó)家的基本傳統(tǒng)，把握這一傳統(tǒng)的創(chuàng)造性轉(zhuǎn)化及其方向。

中華民族多元一體的傳統(tǒng)是現(xiàn)代中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)的基礎(chǔ)，中國(guó)依其常態(tài)及可持續(xù)的歷史邏輯，不可能走單一民族國(guó)家之路，而必然是面向多民族國(guó)家模式；任何一種主張暴力與強(qiáng)力的政治觀念，在中國(guó)化的過(guò)程中都應(yīng)當(dāng)與中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)所崇尚的和合精神相契合，而中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)的天下觀也要求進(jìn)行相應(yīng)層面的轉(zhuǎn)化，包括面向族群多樣性的轉(zhuǎn)化。基于民族傳統(tǒng)以及現(xiàn)代世界背景，中國(guó)的多民族國(guó)家模式，也不可能是自由主義的多民族國(guó)家模式，而必然是社會(huì)主義的團(tuán)結(jié)模式。當(dāng)然，中國(guó)的多民族國(guó)家模式拒斥自由主義，但并不意味著拒斥自由、民主、人權(quán)、法治等現(xiàn)代文明的基本價(jià)值與理念。事實(shí)表明，這些價(jià)值與理念更應(yīng)當(dāng)成為、并且正在成為中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義民族國(guó)家建設(shè)的基本價(jià)值與理念。中國(guó)社會(huì)主義實(shí)踐直接推進(jìn)了中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家的現(xiàn)代重構(gòu)，并已取得了非凡的成就，成為解決現(xiàn)階段諸多民族問(wèn)題、推進(jìn)民族發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)。解決各民族的民生及其發(fā)展問(wèn)題，推進(jìn)國(guó)族的重構(gòu)與認(rèn)同，顯然是完善和發(fā)展中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義治理能力的題中應(yīng)有之義。

現(xiàn)代中國(guó)沒(méi)有選擇自由主義并馴服于社會(huì)達(dá)爾文主義的民族國(guó)家道路，而是承繼中華統(tǒng)一多民族傳統(tǒng)并選擇了馬克思主義的多民族國(guó)家道路。為區(qū)別西式民族國(guó)家道路，坊間趨向于稱中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家為“文明國(guó)家”，這是有一定道理的。但“文明國(guó)家”的命名還是失于籠統(tǒng)，且有排斥意味，也缺乏獨(dú)特的內(nèi)涵，更像是一種自我定位，看來(lái)還需要斟酌。撇開(kāi)稱謂，關(guān)鍵的問(wèn)題在于如何把握中華民族的多元一體傳統(tǒng)及其現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)化。在帕米爾高原這個(gè)“世界屋脊”的巨大的“東坡”，這方土地長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)諸族群形成了交流融合且和而不同的傳統(tǒng)與習(xí)俗，世界歷史進(jìn)程中中華民族的集聚效應(yīng)更趨顯著，且由現(xiàn)代中國(guó)完成了中華民族前所未有的集聚。當(dāng)下時(shí)代，中華民族多元一體傳統(tǒng)仍然持續(xù)，并逐漸造就中華民族共有精神家園，盡管存在諸多消極因素乃至不確定因素，但大勢(shì)已定。

(三)改革開(kāi)放時(shí)代的中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)，理應(yīng)在遏制新自由主義之全球擴(kuò)張、承擔(dān)應(yīng)有人類責(zé)任方面產(chǎn)生積極作為與影響。

從種種情勢(shì)看，當(dāng)下世界族群自覺(jué)的活躍程度正在加劇?，F(xiàn)代世界史上，民族主義經(jīng)歷了三波浪潮，先是威斯特華倫合約之后，歐洲先進(jìn)國(guó)家及老牌國(guó)家影響下的民族國(guó)家重構(gòu)，后波及美國(guó)的國(guó)族重構(gòu)；繼之是俾斯麥統(tǒng)一德國(guó)，開(kāi)啟歐洲(不包含一部分東歐及南歐)的民族國(guó)家格局；再之后西式民族國(guó)家向現(xiàn)代帝國(guó)的轉(zhuǎn)變，又激起新一輪更大范圍的全球民族國(guó)家的重構(gòu)浪潮，以蘇聯(lián)和中國(guó)為引導(dǎo)，波及廣大第三世界。全球資本主義正在興起新一輪的民族主義，這一輪民族主義更加復(fù)雜，且看起來(lái)頗有些失范。一方面是民族問(wèn)題的泛化或空心化，在經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化格局中，族群認(rèn)同淡出；另一方面，在許多地域及場(chǎng)合，民族自覺(jué)又十分較勁，實(shí)際上已經(jīng)與無(wú)政府主義及民粹主義混雜?；谧迦鹤杂X(jué)的多樣性訴求看起來(lái)已經(jīng)取得政治正確性，以至于經(jīng)常令國(guó)家治理層束手無(wú)策。在某種程度上說(shuō)，僅僅基于族群自覺(jué)而無(wú)更多政治理?yè)?jù)的國(guó)族重構(gòu)，在很大程度上還是一種過(guò)時(shí)的族群國(guó)家觀。世界上形成的現(xiàn)代國(guó)家近二百個(gè)，族群五千余個(gè)。如按照族群國(guó)家劃分，有五千余個(gè)國(guó)家，這幾乎難以想象。就此而言，不斷的分離主義式的族群國(guó)家，無(wú)疑是對(duì)已經(jīng)形成傳統(tǒng)的現(xiàn)代國(guó)家結(jié)構(gòu)及其社會(huì)群體的撕裂。就新古典自由主義的外部擴(kuò)張效應(yīng)看，它實(shí)際上仍在持續(xù)地將自由主義的單一民族國(guó)家觀輸入非西方國(guó)家，這依然是今日中國(guó)在全球資本主義時(shí)代面臨的挑戰(zhàn)。

新自由主義的持續(xù)推進(jìn)，是近幾十年全球范圍內(nèi)民族宗教矛盾沖突頻發(fā)、恐怖主義多發(fā)的最重要原因，甚至有可能帶來(lái)世界秩序的新的動(dòng)蕩與災(zāi)難。從價(jià)值層面而言，中國(guó)道路有理由擺脫新自由主義的全球空間，并在克服資本邏輯、實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)的公平正義方面形成積極作為。中國(guó)走的是和平主義的發(fā)展道路，因此，對(duì)外不稱霸，推進(jìn)世界各民族的共同發(fā)展，共襄人類進(jìn)步、和平與文明事業(yè)；對(duì)內(nèi)尊重各民族的差異與多樣性，促進(jìn)各民族共同發(fā)展，乃中華多民族國(guó)家建設(shè)的內(nèi)在要求。多民族國(guó)家的重構(gòu)絕非國(guó)家主義，更不是強(qiáng)國(guó)家主義或帝國(guó)主義，對(duì)此應(yīng)有清醒的認(rèn)識(shí)。中國(guó)道路或中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義道路，一定是與中華民族的復(fù)興之路相統(tǒng)一，且必然要求積極呼應(yīng)人類文明及人類解放的正確方向，而不是與當(dāng)代人類文明對(duì)立起來(lái)。

[責(zé)任編輯劉京希]

Abstracts

What Kind ofAcademic History Do We Need?

—Centered on the Studies of Ancient Chinese Literature

Zuo Dongling

In the past two decades,China has gained remarkable achievements in the field of academic history; yet there still exist many defects which need systematic theoretical reflection. To contribute works on academic history that really meet the needs of academia, the basic principles of “clarifying the purpose” and “distinguishing the origins” proposed inTheLearningCasesofConfuciansintheMingDynasty(MingruXue’an) should be obeyed, and the basic connotation of clear “purpose,” fair evaluation, and prediction of academic growth points should be held to. Accordingly, such objectives require researchers with high academic accomplishment as well as rich experience in professional fields.

Historical Textual Criticism in Studies of the Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties

Sun Zhengjun

Criticism of historical materials is a kind of research paradigm, popular in recent studies of the Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties, which mainly regards historical documents as objective records formerly integrated into the consciousness of historians, so the structure, character, and intention for writing of the historical documents are increasingly sought after. Besides benefiting from the further development of traditional handling of historical materials, the rise of such criticism is also driven by the idea of “text” proposed by post-modern historiography. As a trend, the criticism of historical materials has attracted a batch of young scholars, and has produced abundant illuminating results. But there are still some deficiencies which need our reflection and vigilance, such as overmuch speculation, breaking much more than establishing, and excessive skepticism regarding the historical texts.

The Confucian andLiberal Concepts of Human Nature and Politics (Written Conversations)

Xiao Gongqin, Fang Zhaohui, Gao Quanxi, Xie Wenyu

Editor’s Note: In the beginning of May 2015, the Editorial Department ofWenShiZheheld a forum on “Good Nature or Evil: a Dialogue between Confucianism and Liberalism,” and this group of written conversations are based on the talks presented at the forum. Xiao Gongqin criticizes the over-optimistic Confucian presupposition on human nature, which strengthened the thinking of moral constructivists, so that liberal and New Left scholars in today’s China are still inheriting the Utopian tradition of the “moral ideal.” Fang Zhaohui points out that the opinion which regards good human nature as the mainstream of Confucian theory does not accord with the historical facts. Besides, in Western history, most scholars who advocated autocratic monarchy advocated a theory of evil nature, and most scholars who advocate liberal democracy advocate the theory of a good nature. Gao Quanxi considers that, for political affairs, i.e. how to construct a righteous social system, the presupposition of an evil nature will be more helpful in restricting private use of public rights than one of a good nature; furthermore, it is necessary both for Confucianism to step out of the total focus on human nature (especially a good human nature), and for liberalism to be more inclusive of the Chinese tradition. Those are the inevitable routes for Confucianism’s modern transition as well as for liberalism taking deeper root in today’s China. Xie Wenyu raises the distinction between a politics of rights (i.e., Western constitutionalism) and a responsible politics (i.e., Confucian benevolent government), pointing out that the former resorts to the constitution and legal provisions for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, yet has difficulty controlling consciousness of right regardless of social consequences; the latter emphasizes cultivation of people’s consciousness of responsibility, but does not explicitly stipulate fundamental rights even if they are generally accepted, so rights are inevitably stomped out in the name of responsibility. In the future, Chinese politics must possess a sufficient and balanced consciousness of both responsibility and right.

Confucianism vs. Liberalism:

Distinguishing Theories of Human Nature and the Historical and Cultural Consequences

He Zhonghua

Theories of human nature are essentially prescriptive, not descriptive. As a kind of logical demand, the presupposition of good human nature standardizes human being as the need of transcendent existence. It only tries to grasp what it should be, not how it is. Although the presupposition of evil human nature accords with empirical facts of the majority’s actual behavior preference, it just embodies a kind of descriptive perspective. The revelation of human nature by such an empirical standpoint is internally related with empiristic liberalism defending a strategy of human willfulness. Generally speaking, Confucianism tends to the theory of good human nature, represented by Mencius’ idea. Western empiristic liberalism cannot do without the presupposition of evil human nature, because the empiristic perspective can only discover human beings corporeally. Different presuppositions of human nature cause different historical and cultural consequences. Historically, the theory of a good human nature shaped the cultural tradition of moralism, and the theory of an evil human nature shaped the cultural tradition of “rule of law.”

Introduction to Collation and Annotation ofNewWordsbytheGreenWindow

Huang Xiaoshu

Only two editions ofNewWordsbytheGreenWindow(LüchuangXinhua) can be seen in Mainland China, i.e., the Jiaye Hall edition in Wuxing, and the Dianyi Hall edition in Dehua. Its author, Master Huangdu Fengyue may have lived in the early years of Southern Song Dynasty, and certainly not later than the Yuan Dynasty. He was probably a scribe in ashuhui(a place where scripts of folk arts are written or compiled) of Lin’an City. From the special style of the book’s compilation and related records inConversationswithaDrunkard(ZuiwengTanlu), it can be judged that the book contained important material for the storytellers and scribes to practice or redact novels. About the story’s sources, there are 114 pieces with proper attribution, and 28 pieces whose lost titles can be given references by textual research. The content of the book contemplates social reality, shows behaviors of people from various classes, and a considerable part of it reflects the conditions of a newly arisen stratum and special social customs at that time. The stories in the book had a far-reaching influence on the folk art circles of the time and later periods.

The Domination of New Learning and Eulogistic Rhapsodies in the Northern and Southern Song Dynasties

Liu Pei

Despotism and eulogistic literature are twin brothers, which means autocracy needs ideological safeguards highly consistent with it. The New Learning advocated by Wang Anshi demonstrated a relatively strong character of political despotism. In the Northern and Southern Song Dynasties when the New Learning occupied the dominant position, political despotism further strengthened, and eulogistic literature greatly expanded. Imperial power originated in violence, but the rulers preferred to make people believe that their power was granted by Heaven and possessed decisive legitimacy and uniqueness. Many of the eulogistic rhapsodies at the time served just that aim. Dynastic momentum is the self-knowledge of a country. And the momentum showed in the eulogistic rhapsodies at the time was not only the personal perception of the writer, but also acted as a voice representing the ideology and the shaping of dynastic momentum by imperial power. Some rhapsodies also directly eulogized sage emperors and ideal politics, and actively sought theoretical support for them. The eulogistic rhapsody cannot simply be considered a means by which the literati demonstrated their psychological state of measureless submission to imperial power, it can also construct a false popular will, interpreting political intentions, strengthening ideology, and hereby offering loyalty to imperial power.

Reflection on the Status of Wang Zhong’s Parallel Prose

Lü Shuangwei

In a position between a Confucian anda literatus, Wang Zhong neither gained any appreciation for parallel prose, nor left any critiques on parallel prose during his lifetime. After his death, although his parallel prose gained some recognition, these works were mostly juxtaposed with his ancient prose and poems, or with parallel prose written by Hu Tianyou, Hong Liangji, Yuan Mei, and others, and never held a dominant position. In the reign of Emperor Qianlong, when the sense for and creation of parallel prose were high, Wang’s indifference to parallel prose was just the result of his scattered style in writing. His writings were often four-character but seldom six-character sentences, regularly phrased yet ignoring neat antithesis, and four- and six-character antithesis to every other line were barely used. His language was quite refined, his writings combining parallelism and prose, featuring the deep meaning and elegant style of prose popular in the Eastern Han, Wei, and Jin Dynasties. This kind of prose was not regarded as orthodox for parallel prose, so his writings were rarely selected in collections of parallel prose at that time. From the reigns of Emperors Daoguang and Xianfeng, however, with a deepening trend of combining and integrating parallelism and prose, Wang’s renown in parallel prose gradually increased. However, most works of history of Chinese literature and parallel prose written after 1949 regard Wang’s parallel prose as supreme in all the Qing Dynasty, bestowing on him the dominant position. The reasons for this change deserve our reflection.

A Textual Research of the Status of Despotic Chieftains of Wuchuan Town in theFubingSystem

in the Western Wei and Northern Zhou Dynasties:

With a Discussion of Chen Yinke’s Opinion on theFubingSystem

Xue Haibo

From the time Yuwen Tai became the commander-in-chief of the Guanlong Army, there formed a relationship of commander and subordinate between he and Zhao Gui et. al., the despotic chieftains of Wuchuan Town. The title of so-called “peer” accorded to Yuwen Tai, Zhao, and the others only refers to their relationships as contemporaries in the society of the Six Towns of the Northern Wei Dynasty, and to their achievements since the Six Towns revolt. Zhao Gui et. al. became Pillars of State not because of their peer relationships, nor because Yuwen Tai pursued the old Xianbei system of Eight Ministries, nor because Yuwen was forced into it by Zhao et. al.’s military and political power, but due to his realistic consideration of the need to stabilize the dramatic changes in military ranking caused by the promotion of large numbers of local tyrants and rural commanders in the Guanlong area and elsewhere after the War of Mount Mangshan, and to coordinate the political status of various groups and commanders in the army. As Pillar of State, Zhao Gui and the others did not possess the right to transferfubing(militia garrisons), did not have the capability to provide for large numbers of militia troops, nor could they control the militia garrison by granting the minority Hu surname, let alone form what may be called strong factions in the militia garrison. The rank of peer was just a symbol of their group’s veteran status in the army. Under pressure from Yuwen Hu, the imperial clan of the Northern Zhou replaced most of the Pillar of State group originally comprised of the despotic chieftains of Wuchuan Town, thus forming a militarily decentralized structure in which the Northern Zhou emperor and imperial clan jointly controlled the militia garrison. The effort to centralize military power under imperial authority engendered constant slaughter between the Northern Zhou emperors and the imperial clan over who could master the army, which led in part to Yang Jian establishing the Sui Dynasty instead of the Northern Zhou Dynasty.

A New Discussion of Yang Miaozhen:The State of Research, Basic Deeds, and an Evaluation

Jiang Xidong

In her early years, Yang Miaozhen was aninvincible expert of pear-flower spear martial arts, and after the death of her elder brother Yang Anguo, she became the supreme leader of the Shandong Red Coat Army (i.e., Loyalty Army) equal to her husband Li Quan. Although the stress of circumstances brought her to surrender her army to the Song and Mongolian courts, Yang always kept the “Shandong standard” principle strategically in mind and sought independent development. In her later years, she was the “Special Departmental Clerk at Shandong and Huainan” as well as a female Taoist priest of Quanzhen Taoism. In A.D. 1252, she resigned the Departmental Clerk post, succeeded by her heir Li Tan. Li Tan’s defection to Mongolia and surrender to the Song Court was deeply influenced by Yang and Li Quan. Yang is a peculiar heroine who revolted against national oppression and class exploitation in ancient Shandong, as well as a prominent figure pursuing self-protection and autonomy; yet there still remain serious historical limitations and errors regarding her. The stirring history of Yang Miaozhen, Li Quan and others with their army reflects the great failures of the Jin Dynasty, the Southern Song Court, and the Mongolian government in the thirteenth century, leaving many lessons written in blood for later generations.

The Imperial Republic from the Qing Emperor to the Dasheng (Mahatma) Emperor:

A Study of the “Constitutional Draft Amended by Yuan Shikai”

Li Dongmu, Soto Wataru, Yoshida Tomio

As one of the handwritten documents preserved by Dr. Morohashi Tetsuji, the “Constitutional Draft Amended by Yuan Shikai” is now archived in the Morohashi Tetsuji Memorial Hall in Sanjō City, Niigata Prefecture, Japan, and has not been made public. What kind of material is this draft written before the birth of the “republic”? What is its significance? Is there a final text based upon it? What kind of form, if any, did the codified edition have? As the design of a “republican” state system, what are the similarities and differences between it and contemporaneous constitutional plans currently known? On the birth of the “republic,” Yuan also prepared a scheme for a so-called “imperial republic” substituting a Mahatma Emperor for the Qing Emperor. The structure of this state system with coexistence of the Mahatma Emperor and the Grand President was different from any “constitution” officially released in that period, provided a new conception different from both “constitutional monarchy” and “constitutional republic,” and reflected a level once reached in constitutional design.

The Error in Cultural Comparisons: a Look into Roger Ame’s “Confucian Role Ethics”

Ben K. Hammer

Cultural comparisons have many different methods, but there is a commonality, a common error, prevalent in most models today. Cultural comparisons have an overwhelming tendency to set the East and the West in opposition to each other, and with this as their starting point, create an artificial juxtaposition. The definitions, analyses, and final judgments of cultural comparisons that stem from such a tendency inevitably paint the East and West as polar opposites. Such comparisons do not reflect the reality of either culture and are unfair to both. When looking at this issue historically we find that the erroneous attraction to polarize cultures has existed in academic circles for at least the last century. Looking into the matter even more deeply, psychological research reveals that polarizing“us” and “others” is in fact a natural disposition to humans, making this problem not just one of academic bias, but of epistemology itself. It is the author's hope that a thorough analysis of this phenomenon will reveal the problems with much work being done in cultural comparison today, with the further hope that they may be recognized and minimized, creating an opportunity for more accurate portrayals of different cultures and their defining characteristics. In particular, we will be using the popular theory of “Confucian Role Ethics” as a case study and typical example of “polarizing” cultural comparison.

Indigenized Marxism and the Modern Reconstruction of a Multi-ethnic China

Zou Shipeng

Marx’s critique of classical liberalism contains criticism of the view of single-national states and nation-states generally. The eastward transmission of Marxism brought radical national independence and liberation movements, including the independence and liberation of modern China. Yet because of China’s unique pattern of one multi-ethnic unity, it could not follow the model of the Soviet Union in the construction of a modern multi-ethnic country. In modern China, both liberalism and conservatism appeal to the nation-state, but indigenized Chinese Marxism consciously criticizes this appeal, continually devoting itself to the modern reconstruction of a multi-ethnic country, an approach continued after 1978, which makes China unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the former Soviet Union. Reconstructing modern China as a multi-ethnic country accords with the historical logic of indigenous Marxism in China, and also carries with it the reasonable consequence of modernizing Chinese tradition.

基金項(xiàng)目：本文系國(guó)家社會(huì)科學(xué)基金重點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目“馬克思主義與中國(guó)多民族國(guó)家精神的重構(gòu)”(10AZD002)的階段性成果。

作者簡(jiǎn)介：鄒詩(shī)鵬，復(fù)旦大學(xué)哲學(xué)學(xué)院、當(dāng)代國(guó)外馬克思主義研究中心教授(上海 200433)。