作者:
Prasenjit Duara 出版社: University Of Chicago Press 副标题: Questioning Narratives of Modern China 出版年: 1997-1-1 页数: 286 定价: USD 24.00 装帧: Paperback ISBN: 9780226167220
Prasenjit Duara offers the first systematic account of the relationship between the nation-state, nationalism, and the concept of linear history. Focusing primarily on China and including discussion of India, Duara argues that many historians of postcolonial nation-states have adopted a linear, evolutionary history of the Enlightenment/colonial model. As a result, they have wri...
Prasenjit Duara offers the first systematic account of the relationship between the nation-state, nationalism, and the concept of linear history. Focusing primarily on China and including discussion of India, Duara argues that many historians of postcolonial nation-states have adopted a linear, evolutionary history of the Enlightenment/colonial model. As a result, they have written repressive, exclusionary, and incomplete accounts.
The backlash against such histories has resulted in a tendency to view the past as largely constructed, imagined, or invented. In this book, Duara offers a way out of the impasse between constructionism and the evolving nation; he redefines history as a series of multiple, often conflicting narratives produced simultaneously at national, local, and transnational levels. In a series of closely linked case studies, he considers such examples as the very different histories produced by Chinese nationalist reformers and partisans of popular religions, the conflicting narratives of statist nationalists and of advocates of federalism in early twentieth-century China. He demonstrates the necessity of incorporating contestation, appropriation, repression, and the return of the repressed subject into any account of the past that will be meaningful to the present. Duara demonstrates how to write histories that resist being pressed into the service of the national subject in its progress—or stalled progress—toward modernity.
作者简介
· · · · · ·
Prasenjit Duara is chair of the department of history at the University of chicago. He is the author of Culture, Power, and the State: Rural North China, 1900-1942 and Sovereignty and Authentcity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern.
There are three moments in a bifurcated history that together grant us some distance to see history beyond, or perhaps, between the discourse and narratives of the scholarly world and historical actions. In a first moment, we seek to grasp the appropriating efforts of a narrative through a critical reading of its language, attending not only to its strategies of constructing representations, but to its tactics of working with historical meanings. In a second moment, we attend to the gaps and failures of this narrative attempt to contain the "real" and most especially to signs of the dispersed "real" when they reappear elsewhere, as with the Gelaohui carnival. In a final moment, we gain a distance from the differences between our own disciplinary goals and those of the object discourse (soc... (查看原文)
Prasenjit Duara is smart, and brilliant. Worth reading from cover to cover. Recommend this volume & Culture, Power and the State to all sociology students
smart and important, but not most helpful to me now. it's ironic... two years ago I couldn't even get beyond chapter 1, and now it becomes so familiar that makes me want to "bifurcate" from him.
通过批判黑格尔的线性启蒙史观来重写历史—> toward a bifurcated history, 二元概念such as tradition and modernity make little sense; “nation” 不再作为一个驱动历史前进的主体—> instead focus on the local, unofficial, fragmented, repressed momen...通过批判黑格尔的线性启蒙史观来重写历史—> toward a bifurcated history, 二元概念such as tradition and modernity make little sense; “nation” 不再作为一个驱动历史前进的主体—> instead focus on the local, unofficial, fragmented, repressed moments of history—> 意即通往后现代的解构吗?(展开)
我不知道这到底是怎么一回事情,但我发现了这件滑稽的事。 以下是国内出版杜赞奇的[Rescuing History from the Natio]n一书的三个版本。 江苏人民出版社2009年的版本除了封面换了之外,排版与2008版本无任何不同。所以此处就只说03版和08版的比较问题。 针对《从民族国家拯救历...
(展开)
本书目标:同时考察nation-state和nationalism之间的关系,和一种单线化的将历史写作nation作为History的主体不断实现其自我的历史书写方式。提出“复线的历史”(bifurcated history),同时用这种历史主张,重新批判性地考察中国二十世纪初的nationalism。具体情境是二十世纪初的中国(我认为更加准确的说是晚清1900年前后到1930年国民党早期)。
Introduction
提出问题。Nationalism作为一个不断斗争的场域,以及在此场域中和其他群体身份认同以及随之而来的他者(Other)的耦合。
1. Linear History and the Nation State
黑格尔的历史观(History) -- 其随着西方霸权的扩张,在西方学者中的继承(Marx, Weber)和在亚洲的传播接受 -- “人民”(people)的再造 -- 中国的historiography, 梁启超、汪精卫、傅斯年、顾颉刚、鲁迅 -- nation, History, end of History的同构
2. Bifurcating Linear Histories in China and India
反对Anderson, Gellner等nationalism经典论者 -- nationalism作为cohesive whole未必一定可能; 而倘若用其弱含义political community未必是现代专属(具体见p.55) -- 中国和印度历史中political community的建构(中国宋、明、反清;印度摩罗衍那) -- community的叙述,历史的分叉和书写 --现代: 世界体系中的现代国家(state)和nationalism的耦合,复线历史既看transmission又看dispersal (p.73) -- 分析方法和视角的声张 (p.78-80)
3. The Campaign Against Religion and the Return of the Repressed
接续end of History,传统/现代二分rigidity的讨论 -- 知识分子、国家与再造人民 -- 袁世凯新政扫除popular religion的努力(1900-1915) -- 国民党左翼(1927-1930)意图攫取民间宗教的组织架构实施现代化计划同时扩张国家权力受到的抵制 -- 反抗者小刀会和国民党对立双方对于“大同”(Great Unity)符号的掌握解释(appropriation)和再利用
4. Secret Brotherhood and Revolutionary Discourse in China's Republican Revolution
Secret Societies -- 其"忠""义"与儒家的隐秘联系,革命者如何试图利用前一层含义&反满与brotherhood与共和国中的平等个体相连,而拒斥打破其和儒家观念的任何联系 -- 陶成章的两个文本,在动员中如何区分不同的secret societies,其national essence的讨论放置于章太炎胡适顾颉刚的知识分子书写中 -- 孙中山对秘密协会的态度、利用重视但逐渐拒斥 -- 种族纯洁化和社会达尔文主义的结合 -- 逐渐放弃此种结合基于具体需要转向五族共和
5. The Genealogy of Fengjian or Feudalism: Narratives of Civil Society and State
historiography中对于中国市民社会的讨论,而作者的问题意识在于当时这种话语如何被边缘化 -- 专注于看二十世纪早期“封建”话语作为对中央集权的check如何与“市民社会”的协会组织作为自治曾经耦合 -- 袁世凯和赵尔巽的state-building,有些成效但是更加造成了既未贯彻现代化项目又掠夺基层压制市民社会的中间层官僚土豪劣绅军阀 -- 弱国家和强statist discourse的同时存在,后者被作为了History
6. Provincial Narratives of the Nation: Federalism and Centralism in Modern China
二十世纪初至1927北伐之前federalist和centralist的争论,后者如何胜出并且作为History的代表埋葬 -- 梁启超、章太炎的federalim思想,同乡会etc. -- Federalist章士钊如何反驳批评者 -- 联省自治 -- 湖南:谭嗣同、毛泽东的省级自治思想及实践,以及军阀将这些思想变成了实现政治投机和自我目的的场所,愿景失败 -- 广东:孙中山和军阀陈炯明的决裂的重新解读,KMT与孙中山作为最后History的承担者对陈的道德化谴责,以及实际的陈炯明federalist地方自治的实践和思想及其与孙中山作为centralist的分裂 -- 同时“封建”失去了早先的对集权国家批判性力量,而和日本一样成为了现代性的Other被谴责的对象
7. Critics of Modernity in China and India
中国和印度面对西方现代性,知识分子反应的某种相似性,东方-西方&精神-物质二分 -- 在中国通常被单线历史叙述斥责为文化保守主义者而完全湮灭其寻找alternative的努力 -- 印度的尼赫鲁(现代化) - 甘地(对现代性的全部拒斥)区别 --为何甘地仅在印度生根发芽并且在印度的历史和社会中占据如此重要的位置 -- 两个回答该问题的策略:看知识精英和国家权力的关系,以及看colonial ideology本身的不同 -- 对中国知识界的再考察,对甘地的批评(有关History)
Conclusion
再总结。略回应Introduction,重新回顾并进一步推复线历史的理论和方法。
-----------------------
好吧,以上仅仅是为了帮助自己回顾这本书的内容,完全不能够涵盖杜赞奇在每一页每一节字里行间精辟入里的分析。笔记肯定回头还要在做。先说说我为什么觉得这本书很重要。
路子很让我喜欢自不用说。看得到福柯的知识考古学,德里达、后殖民等等(后面两个还没读),但显然是有“结构”的,承续了他在《文化权力国家》里对state-building的关注,跟这个思想史文化史研究搭的很好。另外关注alternative被遮蔽的主体什么的。
“复线历史”看上去是一个很简单的词,事实上包括了一整套完全不同的史观、看待历史分析历史的方法。它关注思想概念符号的不断转录、翻译,强硬的和软和的群体边界(比如Nationalism)的不断变化,新思想的出现在旧的概念里被理解,同时传承(transimission)和承异(dispersal),而在历史过程展开中某一个时刻因为种种原因最终占据主导地位的行为体会宣布自己和自己对于nationalism的一切解释是History的唯一承担者和接续者,也自然将其他alternative的转录解释和探索方式完全荫蔽、埋葬和边缘化。但你并不知道,这些被荫蔽掉的话语和叙述什么时候再会梳理出一个他们的谱系,重新跑出来haunt the present。
对我自己的思维进路来说,重要的在于,among others,从根子上说明为什么(不同时期不同人的)“叙述”(narrative),或者换句话说,对知识、文本、话语整个领域的研究,是有显著意义的——因为我们实在太习惯黑格尔式的单线史观了,因为国民革命最终胜利了所以中国就是要大一统,因为军阀联邦国民党统统失败了所以“历史选择了CCP”,因为现在中国经济增长那么快所以改革开放是对的所以谁谁统治是对的,这种把历史过程当做历史必然性再自然而然地当做合法性的思维方式,虽然扯淡,实在是太有诱惑力太容易顺过去了。在这种单线的、回溯性的史观中,视野里仅仅看得到能推导到49年、78年或者随便什么被History认为重要节点的相关变迁,用今天的现在的以及最终胜利者的视角,去“格”一切历史上的探索和行为主体,认为他们不过是“不够现代”或者“CP革命的早期探索”。也是在这种视角下,当然会以为知识不重要叙述不重要,结构反正会这样变迁,话语无非就是贴在History结构变迁上的一层东西。
但并非如此。在不同的历史时刻中,最终被认为是History的那一种特定的对nationalism(或者无论对什么的)转译和理解,也只是当时各种各样叙述拼贴和理解再阐释的其中一种;我们当然可以去研究让这一种potentialities/historical bloc得以最终实现的circumstances,无论是社会经济结构、historical contingency又或是某个特定的领袖或者行为主体。但这并不代表,这一种特定的叙述跟institution联系起来了、在现实意义上多多少少改变历史进程了,就必然是当时当地的唯一可能。同样也需要去关注其他的叙述是如何、由谁所组织起来的,怎样传播和被接受,又是在何种情境下逐渐失去了constituencies,和现实中的movement、institution或者其他重要行为体所分离,又怎样逐渐的被另外的叙述方式所压制和边缘化。因为它们被边缘化被压制被埋葬,完全不代表这些叙述和历史梳理方式不再存在,恰恰可能在新的情境下变幻出新的模式,具有另外的和具体组织制度群体所结合的潜力,正如它们在那些个历史时刻中所表现出的那样。在单线历史观中,这些会被认为是早就被丢进历史垃圾箱不再重要,但通常情况下这往往意味着误读了历史也误读了自己所在的社会。
因此,话语、叙述和知识是需要被认真对待和研究的。在复线历史观中,它们恢复了本应具有的显著地位。
(当然,这并不意味着复线历史只能并且必然涵盖话语和历史,彭慕兰与王国斌所做的比较历史,不仅问“为什么中国没有成为英国”也问“十八世纪之后为什么欧洲没有变成中国”也可以看做是复线历史的一种表现——虽然他们意义上的复线历史和杜赞奇并不完全一样)
另外,当宣称关注话语、文化和叙事的时候,往往容易往后现代、后殖民、后结构上一骑绝尘,像Sewell批评(很大一部分)文化史那样只看文本而“疏离于现实的阶级、社会结构和组织制度”。而杜赞奇此书中,既有强大的文本细读(close-reading)功夫,读孙中山、陈独秀、陶成章、章士钊等能入户其中出乎其外,又将其放置于和结构(如革命者-秘密社团;联邦主义-集权主义)的紧密联系,以及整体的环境形势中。3-6章四个经验章节贯穿了杜赞奇对于state-building,nation-building的持续关注,因而对这些文本的阅读,也暗合了社会学中“与实践紧密相连的文化”中的主题。从社会科学出身的立场来说显然是极有帮助的。
最后,杜赞奇这本书似乎回答了我前两天针对Sewell的问题:Sewell说multiplicity of structure & multiplicity of resources看如何资源如何被动员和转录并藉此发展出了他的变迁理论,那如何去看待那些恰好没有被transpose到另一个时段的资源呢?“复线历史”正是一个良好的补充和对照。而杜赞奇和Sewell的进路,在我看来,也的确有不少相似之处。
结语。方法论。 There are three moments in a bifurcated history that together grant us some distance to see history beyond, or perhaps, between the discourse and narratives of the scholarly world and historical actions. In a first moment, we seek to grasp the appropriating efforts of a narrative through a critical reading of its language, attending not only to its strategies of constructing repr...
2017-01-15 11:171人喜欢
结语。方法论。
There are three moments in a bifurcated history that together grant us some distance to see history beyond, or perhaps, between the discourse and narratives of the scholarly world and historical actions. In a first moment, we seek to grasp the appropriating efforts of a narrative through a critical reading of its language, attending not only to its strategies of constructing representations, but to its tactics of working with historical meanings. In a second moment, we attend to the gaps and failures of this narrative attempt to contain the "real" and most especially to signs of the dispersed "real" when they reappear elsewhere, as with the Gelaohui carnival. In a final moment, we gain a distance from the differences between our own disciplinary goals and those of the object discourse (social Darwinism, sectarian utopianism, modernization theory). It is important, however, not to see this distance as yielding absolute truth but as an enabling advantage that comes from being at a different place and a different time.
The hermeneutics of these three moments allows us to locate a history within the fissures in, at the limits of, and in the spaces between discourse. From this vantage-ground, critical historiography has the ability to historicize and de-totalize power. In revealing the historicity of an identity presumed to be originary, exclusive and cohesive, bifurcated histories belie the claims of those who would harden the boundaries of society in the name of cultural authenticity. This is an authenticity that lacks the capacity for tolerance and interdependence because it will not admit of the Other within itself. 引自第236页
As the subject of History, it must daily reproduce the project of recovering its national essence --to secure its transparency as the already-always of the nation space. At the same time, the Enlightenment discourse of modern civilization has made it imperative for all societies to affiliate themselves with modernity. Committing oneself to modernity and progress, however, is a commitment to the...
2014-12-01 11:36
As the subject of History, it must daily reproduce the project of recovering its national essence --to secure its transparency as the already-always of the nation space. At the same time, the Enlightenment discourse of modern civilization has made it imperative for all societies to affiliate themselves with modernity. Committing oneself to modernity and progress, however, is a commitment to the celebration of the new, the breaking of old shackles. Thus while on the one hand, nation-states glorify the ancient or eternal character of the nation, they also seek to emphasize the unprecedented nature of the nation-state, becuase it is only in this form that the people-nation has been able to realize itself as self-conscious subject of History.引自 Linear History and the Nation-State
本书目标:同时考察nation-state和nationalism之间的关系,和一种单线化的将历史写作nation作为History的主体不断实现其自我的历史书写方式。提出“复线的历史”(bifurcated history),同时用这种历史主张,重新批判性地考察中国二十世纪初的nationalism。具体情境是二十世纪初的中国(我认为更加准确的说是晚清1900年前后到1930年国民党早期)。
Introduction
提出问题。Nationalism作为一个不断斗争的场域,以及在此场域中和其他群体身份认同以及随之而来的他者(Other)的耦合。
1. Linear History and the Nation State
黑格尔的历史观(History) -- 其随着西方霸权的扩张,在西方学者中的继承(Marx, Weber)和在亚洲的传播接受 -- “人民”(people)的再造 -- 中国的historiography, 梁启超、汪精卫、傅斯年、顾颉刚、鲁迅 -- nation, History, end of History的同构
2. Bifurcating Linear Histories in China and India
反对Anderson, Gellner等nationalism经典论者 -- nationalism作为cohesive whole未必一定可能; 而倘若用其弱含义political community未必是现代专属(具体见p.55) -- 中国和印度历史中political community的建构(中国宋、明、反清;印度摩罗衍那) -- community的叙述,历史的分叉和书写 --现代: 世界体系中的现代国家(state)和nationalism的耦合,复线历史既看transmission又看dispersal (p.73) -- 分析方法和视角的声张 (p.78-80)
3. The Campaign Against Religion and the Return of the Repressed
接续end of History,传统/现代二分rigidity的讨论 -- 知识分子、国家与再造人民 -- 袁世凯新政扫除popular religion的努力(1900-1915) -- 国民党左翼(1927-1930)意图攫取民间宗教的组织架构实施现代化计划同时扩张国家权力受到的抵制 -- 反抗者小刀会和国民党对立双方对于“大同”(Great Unity)符号的掌握解释(appropriation)和再利用
4. Secret Brotherhood and Revolutionary Discourse in China's Republican Revolution
Secret Societies -- 其"忠""义"与儒家的隐秘联系,革命者如何试图利用前一层含义&反满与brotherhood与共和国中的平等个体相连,而拒斥打破其和儒家观念的任何联系 -- 陶成章的两个文本,在动员中如何区分不同的secret societies,其national essence的讨论放置于章太炎胡适顾颉刚的知识分子书写中 -- 孙中山对秘密协会的态度、利用重视但逐渐拒斥 -- 种族纯洁化和社会达尔文主义的结合 -- 逐渐放弃此种结合基于具体需要转向五族共和
5. The Genealogy of Fengjian or Feudalism: Narratives of Civil Society and State
historiography中对于中国市民社会的讨论,而作者的问题意识在于当时这种话语如何被边缘化 -- 专注于看二十世纪早期“封建”话语作为对中央集权的check如何与“市民社会”的协会组织作为自治曾经耦合 -- 袁世凯和赵尔巽的state-building,有些成效但是更加造成了既未贯彻现代化项目又掠夺基层压制市民社会的中间层官僚土豪劣绅军阀 -- 弱国家和强statist discourse的同时存在,后者被作为了History
6. Provincial Narratives of the Nation: Federalism and Centralism in Modern China
二十世纪初至1927北伐之前federalist和centralist的争论,后者如何胜出并且作为History的代表埋葬 -- 梁启超、章太炎的federalim思想,同乡会etc. -- Federalist章士钊如何反驳批评者 -- 联省自治 -- 湖南:谭嗣同、毛泽东的省级自治思想及实践,以及军阀将这些思想变成了实现政治投机和自我目的的场所,愿景失败 -- 广东:孙中山和军阀陈炯明的决裂的重新解读,KMT与孙中山作为最后History的承担者对陈的道德化谴责,以及实际的陈炯明federalist地方自治的实践和思想及其与孙中山作为centralist的分裂 -- 同时“封建”失去了早先的对集权国家批判性力量,而和日本一样成为了现代性的Other被谴责的对象
7. Critics of Modernity in China and India
中国和印度面对西方现代性,知识分子反应的某种相似性,东方-西方&精神-物质二分 -- 在中国通常被单线历史叙述斥责为文化保守主义者而完全湮灭其寻找alternative的努力 -- 印度的尼赫鲁(现代化) - 甘地(对现代性的全部拒斥)区别 --为何甘地仅在印度生根发芽并且在印度的历史和社会中占据如此重要的位置 -- 两个回答该问题的策略:看知识精英和国家权力的关系,以及看colonial ideology本身的不同 -- 对中国知识界的再考察,对甘地的批评(有关History)
Conclusion
再总结。略回应Introduction,重新回顾并进一步推复线历史的理论和方法。
-----------------------
好吧,以上仅仅是为了帮助自己回顾这本书的内容,完全不能够涵盖杜赞奇在每一页每一节字里行间精辟入里的分析。笔记肯定回头还要在做。先说说我为什么觉得这本书很重要。
路子很让我喜欢自不用说。看得到福柯的知识考古学,德里达、后殖民等等(后面两个还没读),但显然是有“结构”的,承续了他在《文化权力国家》里对state-building的关注,跟这个思想史文化史研究搭的很好。另外关注alternative被遮蔽的主体什么的。
“复线历史”看上去是一个很简单的词,事实上包括了一整套完全不同的史观、看待历史分析历史的方法。它关注思想概念符号的不断转录、翻译,强硬的和软和的群体边界(比如Nationalism)的不断变化,新思想的出现在旧的概念里被理解,同时传承(transimission)和承异(dispersal),而在历史过程展开中某一个时刻因为种种原因最终占据主导地位的行为体会宣布自己和自己对于nationalism的一切解释是History的唯一承担者和接续者,也自然将其他alternative的转录解释和探索方式完全荫蔽、埋葬和边缘化。但你并不知道,这些被荫蔽掉的话语和叙述什么时候再会梳理出一个他们的谱系,重新跑出来haunt the present。
对我自己的思维进路来说,重要的在于,among others,从根子上说明为什么(不同时期不同人的)“叙述”(narrative),或者换句话说,对知识、文本、话语整个领域的研究,是有显著意义的——因为我们实在太习惯黑格尔式的单线史观了,因为国民革命最终胜利了所以中国就是要大一统,因为军阀联邦国民党统统失败了所以“历史选择了CCP”,因为现在中国经济增长那么快所以改革开放是对的所以谁谁统治是对的,这种把历史过程当做历史必然性再自然而然地当做合法性的思维方式,虽然扯淡,实在是太有诱惑力太容易顺过去了。在这种单线的、回溯性的史观中,视野里仅仅看得到能推导到49年、78年或者随便什么被History认为重要节点的相关变迁,用今天的现在的以及最终胜利者的视角,去“格”一切历史上的探索和行为主体,认为他们不过是“不够现代”或者“CP革命的早期探索”。也是在这种视角下,当然会以为知识不重要叙述不重要,结构反正会这样变迁,话语无非就是贴在History结构变迁上的一层东西。
但并非如此。在不同的历史时刻中,最终被认为是History的那一种特定的对nationalism(或者无论对什么的)转译和理解,也只是当时各种各样叙述拼贴和理解再阐释的其中一种;我们当然可以去研究让这一种potentialities/historical bloc得以最终实现的circumstances,无论是社会经济结构、historical contingency又或是某个特定的领袖或者行为主体。但这并不代表,这一种特定的叙述跟institution联系起来了、在现实意义上多多少少改变历史进程了,就必然是当时当地的唯一可能。同样也需要去关注其他的叙述是如何、由谁所组织起来的,怎样传播和被接受,又是在何种情境下逐渐失去了constituencies,和现实中的movement、institution或者其他重要行为体所分离,又怎样逐渐的被另外的叙述方式所压制和边缘化。因为它们被边缘化被压制被埋葬,完全不代表这些叙述和历史梳理方式不再存在,恰恰可能在新的情境下变幻出新的模式,具有另外的和具体组织制度群体所结合的潜力,正如它们在那些个历史时刻中所表现出的那样。在单线历史观中,这些会被认为是早就被丢进历史垃圾箱不再重要,但通常情况下这往往意味着误读了历史也误读了自己所在的社会。
因此,话语、叙述和知识是需要被认真对待和研究的。在复线历史观中,它们恢复了本应具有的显著地位。
(当然,这并不意味着复线历史只能并且必然涵盖话语和历史,彭慕兰与王国斌所做的比较历史,不仅问“为什么中国没有成为英国”也问“十八世纪之后为什么欧洲没有变成中国”也可以看做是复线历史的一种表现——虽然他们意义上的复线历史和杜赞奇并不完全一样)
另外,当宣称关注话语、文化和叙事的时候,往往容易往后现代、后殖民、后结构上一骑绝尘,像Sewell批评(很大一部分)文化史那样只看文本而“疏离于现实的阶级、社会结构和组织制度”。而杜赞奇此书中,既有强大的文本细读(close-reading)功夫,读孙中山、陈独秀、陶成章、章士钊等能入户其中出乎其外,又将其放置于和结构(如革命者-秘密社团;联邦主义-集权主义)的紧密联系,以及整体的环境形势中。3-6章四个经验章节贯穿了杜赞奇对于state-building,nation-building的持续关注,因而对这些文本的阅读,也暗合了社会学中“与实践紧密相连的文化”中的主题。从社会科学出身的立场来说显然是极有帮助的。
最后,杜赞奇这本书似乎回答了我前两天针对Sewell的问题:Sewell说multiplicity of structure & multiplicity of resources看如何资源如何被动员和转录并藉此发展出了他的变迁理论,那如何去看待那些恰好没有被transpose到另一个时段的资源呢?“复线历史”正是一个良好的补充和对照。而杜赞奇和Sewell的进路,在我看来,也的确有不少相似之处。
As the subject of History, it must daily reproduce the project of recovering its national essence --to secure its transparency as the already-always of the nation space. At the same time, the Enlightenment discourse of modern civilization has made it imperative for all societies to affiliate themselves with modernity. Committing oneself to modernity and progress, however, is a commitment to the...
2014-12-01 11:36
As the subject of History, it must daily reproduce the project of recovering its national essence --to secure its transparency as the already-always of the nation space. At the same time, the Enlightenment discourse of modern civilization has made it imperative for all societies to affiliate themselves with modernity. Committing oneself to modernity and progress, however, is a commitment to the celebration of the new, the breaking of old shackles. Thus while on the one hand, nation-states glorify the ancient or eternal character of the nation, they also seek to emphasize the unprecedented nature of the nation-state, becuase it is only in this form that the people-nation has been able to realize itself as self-conscious subject of History.引自 Linear History and the Nation-State
结语。方法论。 There are three moments in a bifurcated history that together grant us some distance to see history beyond, or perhaps, between the discourse and narratives of the scholarly world and historical actions. In a first moment, we seek to grasp the appropriating efforts of a narrative through a critical reading of its language, attending not only to its strategies of constructing repr...
2017-01-15 11:171人喜欢
结语。方法论。
There are three moments in a bifurcated history that together grant us some distance to see history beyond, or perhaps, between the discourse and narratives of the scholarly world and historical actions. In a first moment, we seek to grasp the appropriating efforts of a narrative through a critical reading of its language, attending not only to its strategies of constructing representations, but to its tactics of working with historical meanings. In a second moment, we attend to the gaps and failures of this narrative attempt to contain the "real" and most especially to signs of the dispersed "real" when they reappear elsewhere, as with the Gelaohui carnival. In a final moment, we gain a distance from the differences between our own disciplinary goals and those of the object discourse (social Darwinism, sectarian utopianism, modernization theory). It is important, however, not to see this distance as yielding absolute truth but as an enabling advantage that comes from being at a different place and a different time.
The hermeneutics of these three moments allows us to locate a history within the fissures in, at the limits of, and in the spaces between discourse. From this vantage-ground, critical historiography has the ability to historicize and de-totalize power. In revealing the historicity of an identity presumed to be originary, exclusive and cohesive, bifurcated histories belie the claims of those who would harden the boundaries of society in the name of cultural authenticity. This is an authenticity that lacks the capacity for tolerance and interdependence because it will not admit of the Other within itself. 引自第236页
结语。方法论。 There are three moments in a bifurcated history that together grant us some distance to see history beyond, or perhaps, between the discourse and narratives of the scholarly world and historical actions. In a first moment, we seek to grasp the appropriating efforts of a narrative through a critical reading of its language, attending not only to its strategies of constructing repr...
2017-01-15 11:171人喜欢
结语。方法论。
There are three moments in a bifurcated history that together grant us some distance to see history beyond, or perhaps, between the discourse and narratives of the scholarly world and historical actions. In a first moment, we seek to grasp the appropriating efforts of a narrative through a critical reading of its language, attending not only to its strategies of constructing representations, but to its tactics of working with historical meanings. In a second moment, we attend to the gaps and failures of this narrative attempt to contain the "real" and most especially to signs of the dispersed "real" when they reappear elsewhere, as with the Gelaohui carnival. In a final moment, we gain a distance from the differences between our own disciplinary goals and those of the object discourse (social Darwinism, sectarian utopianism, modernization theory). It is important, however, not to see this distance as yielding absolute truth but as an enabling advantage that comes from being at a different place and a different time.
The hermeneutics of these three moments allows us to locate a history within the fissures in, at the limits of, and in the spaces between discourse. From this vantage-ground, critical historiography has the ability to historicize and de-totalize power. In revealing the historicity of an identity presumed to be originary, exclusive and cohesive, bifurcated histories belie the claims of those who would harden the boundaries of society in the name of cultural authenticity. This is an authenticity that lacks the capacity for tolerance and interdependence because it will not admit of the Other within itself. 引自第236页
As the subject of History, it must daily reproduce the project of recovering its national essence --to secure its transparency as the already-always of the nation space. At the same time, the Enlightenment discourse of modern civilization has made it imperative for all societies to affiliate themselves with modernity. Committing oneself to modernity and progress, however, is a commitment to the...
2014-12-01 11:36
As the subject of History, it must daily reproduce the project of recovering its national essence --to secure its transparency as the already-always of the nation space. At the same time, the Enlightenment discourse of modern civilization has made it imperative for all societies to affiliate themselves with modernity. Committing oneself to modernity and progress, however, is a commitment to the celebration of the new, the breaking of old shackles. Thus while on the one hand, nation-states glorify the ancient or eternal character of the nation, they also seek to emphasize the unprecedented nature of the nation-state, becuase it is only in this form that the people-nation has been able to realize itself as self-conscious subject of History.引自 Linear History and the Nation-State
本书目标:同时考察nation-state和nationalism之间的关系,和一种单线化的将历史写作nation作为History的主体不断实现其自我的历史书写方式。提出“复线的历史”(bifurcated history),同时用这种历史主张,重新批判性地考察中国二十世纪初的nationalism。具体情境是二十世纪初的中国(我认为更加准确的说是晚清1900年前后到1930年国民党早期)。
Introduction
提出问题。Nationalism作为一个不断斗争的场域,以及在此场域中和其他群体身份认同以及随之而来的他者(Other)的耦合。
1. Linear History and the Nation State
黑格尔的历史观(History) -- 其随着西方霸权的扩张,在西方学者中的继承(Marx, Weber)和在亚洲的传播接受 -- “人民”(people)的再造 -- 中国的historiography, 梁启超、汪精卫、傅斯年、顾颉刚、鲁迅 -- nation, History, end of History的同构
2. Bifurcating Linear Histories in China and India
反对Anderson, Gellner等nationalism经典论者 -- nationalism作为cohesive whole未必一定可能; 而倘若用其弱含义political community未必是现代专属(具体见p.55) -- 中国和印度历史中political community的建构(中国宋、明、反清;印度摩罗衍那) -- community的叙述,历史的分叉和书写 --现代: 世界体系中的现代国家(state)和nationalism的耦合,复线历史既看transmission又看dispersal (p.73) -- 分析方法和视角的声张 (p.78-80)
3. The Campaign Against Religion and the Return of the Repressed
接续end of History,传统/现代二分rigidity的讨论 -- 知识分子、国家与再造人民 -- 袁世凯新政扫除popular religion的努力(1900-1915) -- 国民党左翼(1927-1930)意图攫取民间宗教的组织架构实施现代化计划同时扩张国家权力受到的抵制 -- 反抗者小刀会和国民党对立双方对于“大同”(Great Unity)符号的掌握解释(appropriation)和再利用
4. Secret Brotherhood and Revolutionary Discourse in China's Republican Revolution
Secret Societies -- 其"忠""义"与儒家的隐秘联系,革命者如何试图利用前一层含义&反满与brotherhood与共和国中的平等个体相连,而拒斥打破其和儒家观念的任何联系 -- 陶成章的两个文本,在动员中如何区分不同的secret societies,其national essence的讨论放置于章太炎胡适顾颉刚的知识分子书写中 -- 孙中山对秘密协会的态度、利用重视但逐渐拒斥 -- 种族纯洁化和社会达尔文主义的结合 -- 逐渐放弃此种结合基于具体需要转向五族共和
5. The Genealogy of Fengjian or Feudalism: Narratives of Civil Society and State
historiography中对于中国市民社会的讨论,而作者的问题意识在于当时这种话语如何被边缘化 -- 专注于看二十世纪早期“封建”话语作为对中央集权的check如何与“市民社会”的协会组织作为自治曾经耦合 -- 袁世凯和赵尔巽的state-building,有些成效但是更加造成了既未贯彻现代化项目又掠夺基层压制市民社会的中间层官僚土豪劣绅军阀 -- 弱国家和强statist discourse的同时存在,后者被作为了History
6. Provincial Narratives of the Nation: Federalism and Centralism in Modern China
二十世纪初至1927北伐之前federalist和centralist的争论,后者如何胜出并且作为History的代表埋葬 -- 梁启超、章太炎的federalim思想,同乡会etc. -- Federalist章士钊如何反驳批评者 -- 联省自治 -- 湖南:谭嗣同、毛泽东的省级自治思想及实践,以及军阀将这些思想变成了实现政治投机和自我目的的场所,愿景失败 -- 广东:孙中山和军阀陈炯明的决裂的重新解读,KMT与孙中山作为最后History的承担者对陈的道德化谴责,以及实际的陈炯明federalist地方自治的实践和思想及其与孙中山作为centralist的分裂 -- 同时“封建”失去了早先的对集权国家批判性力量,而和日本一样成为了现代性的Other被谴责的对象
7. Critics of Modernity in China and India
中国和印度面对西方现代性,知识分子反应的某种相似性,东方-西方&精神-物质二分 -- 在中国通常被单线历史叙述斥责为文化保守主义者而完全湮灭其寻找alternative的努力 -- 印度的尼赫鲁(现代化) - 甘地(对现代性的全部拒斥)区别 --为何甘地仅在印度生根发芽并且在印度的历史和社会中占据如此重要的位置 -- 两个回答该问题的策略:看知识精英和国家权力的关系,以及看colonial ideology本身的不同 -- 对中国知识界的再考察,对甘地的批评(有关History)
Conclusion
再总结。略回应Introduction,重新回顾并进一步推复线历史的理论和方法。
-----------------------
好吧,以上仅仅是为了帮助自己回顾这本书的内容,完全不能够涵盖杜赞奇在每一页每一节字里行间精辟入里的分析。笔记肯定回头还要在做。先说说我为什么觉得这本书很重要。
路子很让我喜欢自不用说。看得到福柯的知识考古学,德里达、后殖民等等(后面两个还没读),但显然是有“结构”的,承续了他在《文化权力国家》里对state-building的关注,跟这个思想史文化史研究搭的很好。另外关注alternative被遮蔽的主体什么的。
“复线历史”看上去是一个很简单的词,事实上包括了一整套完全不同的史观、看待历史分析历史的方法。它关注思想概念符号的不断转录、翻译,强硬的和软和的群体边界(比如Nationalism)的不断变化,新思想的出现在旧的概念里被理解,同时传承(transimission)和承异(dispersal),而在历史过程展开中某一个时刻因为种种原因最终占据主导地位的行为体会宣布自己和自己对于nationalism的一切解释是History的唯一承担者和接续者,也自然将其他alternative的转录解释和探索方式完全荫蔽、埋葬和边缘化。但你并不知道,这些被荫蔽掉的话语和叙述什么时候再会梳理出一个他们的谱系,重新跑出来haunt the present。
对我自己的思维进路来说,重要的在于,among others,从根子上说明为什么(不同时期不同人的)“叙述”(narrative),或者换句话说,对知识、文本、话语整个领域的研究,是有显著意义的——因为我们实在太习惯黑格尔式的单线史观了,因为国民革命最终胜利了所以中国就是要大一统,因为军阀联邦国民党统统失败了所以“历史选择了CCP”,因为现在中国经济增长那么快所以改革开放是对的所以谁谁统治是对的,这种把历史过程当做历史必然性再自然而然地当做合法性的思维方式,虽然扯淡,实在是太有诱惑力太容易顺过去了。在这种单线的、回溯性的史观中,视野里仅仅看得到能推导到49年、78年或者随便什么被History认为重要节点的相关变迁,用今天的现在的以及最终胜利者的视角,去“格”一切历史上的探索和行为主体,认为他们不过是“不够现代”或者“CP革命的早期探索”。也是在这种视角下,当然会以为知识不重要叙述不重要,结构反正会这样变迁,话语无非就是贴在History结构变迁上的一层东西。
但并非如此。在不同的历史时刻中,最终被认为是History的那一种特定的对nationalism(或者无论对什么的)转译和理解,也只是当时各种各样叙述拼贴和理解再阐释的其中一种;我们当然可以去研究让这一种potentialities/historical bloc得以最终实现的circumstances,无论是社会经济结构、historical contingency又或是某个特定的领袖或者行为主体。但这并不代表,这一种特定的叙述跟institution联系起来了、在现实意义上多多少少改变历史进程了,就必然是当时当地的唯一可能。同样也需要去关注其他的叙述是如何、由谁所组织起来的,怎样传播和被接受,又是在何种情境下逐渐失去了constituencies,和现实中的movement、institution或者其他重要行为体所分离,又怎样逐渐的被另外的叙述方式所压制和边缘化。因为它们被边缘化被压制被埋葬,完全不代表这些叙述和历史梳理方式不再存在,恰恰可能在新的情境下变幻出新的模式,具有另外的和具体组织制度群体所结合的潜力,正如它们在那些个历史时刻中所表现出的那样。在单线历史观中,这些会被认为是早就被丢进历史垃圾箱不再重要,但通常情况下这往往意味着误读了历史也误读了自己所在的社会。
因此,话语、叙述和知识是需要被认真对待和研究的。在复线历史观中,它们恢复了本应具有的显著地位。
(当然,这并不意味着复线历史只能并且必然涵盖话语和历史,彭慕兰与王国斌所做的比较历史,不仅问“为什么中国没有成为英国”也问“十八世纪之后为什么欧洲没有变成中国”也可以看做是复线历史的一种表现——虽然他们意义上的复线历史和杜赞奇并不完全一样)
另外,当宣称关注话语、文化和叙事的时候,往往容易往后现代、后殖民、后结构上一骑绝尘,像Sewell批评(很大一部分)文化史那样只看文本而“疏离于现实的阶级、社会结构和组织制度”。而杜赞奇此书中,既有强大的文本细读(close-reading)功夫,读孙中山、陈独秀、陶成章、章士钊等能入户其中出乎其外,又将其放置于和结构(如革命者-秘密社团;联邦主义-集权主义)的紧密联系,以及整体的环境形势中。3-6章四个经验章节贯穿了杜赞奇对于state-building,nation-building的持续关注,因而对这些文本的阅读,也暗合了社会学中“与实践紧密相连的文化”中的主题。从社会科学出身的立场来说显然是极有帮助的。
最后,杜赞奇这本书似乎回答了我前两天针对Sewell的问题:Sewell说multiplicity of structure & multiplicity of resources看如何资源如何被动员和转录并藉此发展出了他的变迁理论,那如何去看待那些恰好没有被transpose到另一个时段的资源呢?“复线历史”正是一个良好的补充和对照。而杜赞奇和Sewell的进路,在我看来,也的确有不少相似之处。
0 有用 张泡沫小姐 2013-09-01
所谓的bifurcate history好像只是个新瓶旧酒罢了,好的是对梁启超,康有为,汪精卫思想的解读,真是refreshing,我原来学了这么久,对自己国家的历史知道得那么少。。。。
0 有用 vertigo 2015-12-28
中间几章很不错,比如反满的民族主义如何把秘密会社和革命党人联结起来,以及辛亥革命后短暂的联省自治、知识分子们关于联邦体制的激辩。但是没理解全书的general thesis…
0 有用 子尧 2013-08-22
沒有民族主義這條線作串聯,中國近代史就是一堆碎片。Rescue history from the nation? Rescue你個大頭鬼。從你手裡rescue還差不多。
0 有用 秋江暝泊 2014-11-18
Prasenjit Duara is smart, and brilliant. Worth reading from cover to cover. Recommend this volume & Culture, Power and the State to all sociology students
2 有用 小红帽 2010-01-30
smart and important, but not most helpful to me now. it's ironic... two years ago I couldn't even get beyond chapter 1, and now it becomes so familiar that makes me want to "bifurcate" from him.
0 有用 Euynix 2020-07-12
通过批判黑格尔的线性启蒙史观来重写历史—> toward a bifurcated history, 二元概念such as tradition and modernity make little sense; “nation” 不再作为一个驱动历史前进的主体—> instead focus on the local, unofficial, fragmented, repressed momen... 通过批判黑格尔的线性启蒙史观来重写历史—> toward a bifurcated history, 二元概念such as tradition and modernity make little sense; “nation” 不再作为一个驱动历史前进的主体—> instead focus on the local, unofficial, fragmented, repressed moments of history—> 意即通往后现代的解构吗? (展开)
1 有用 Derridager 2019-11-11
杜赞奇是一个非常聪明的人。效仿福柯,主张复线的历史,其实就是认为线性的、进步的历史下有着差异、竞争,是异质的;规整的、统一的民族建构是不断排斥异己因素,囊括某些因素的过程。这种民族建构是为了弥合时间的裂缝,既要说明民族长久存在过,有民族本质(好像跟他之后的民族本真性讨论有关,民族如何作为一个可以辨认的、统一的主体),又要说明民族是新的、现代的。
0 有用 eeioo 2019-01-09
重读还是觉得精彩,绝对是2018读过最好的书
0 有用 Johnston 2018-10-09
说是拯救历史,还不如说是重构历史
0 有用 木羽 2018-09-12
Chap 1&2