中国的比较政治学研究，缺什么？
Writer are: Xiong Yihan (熊易寒) and Li Hui (李辉), who are associate professors at Fudan University’s School of International Relations and Public Affairs, also Tang Shiping (唐世平), who is a professor of International Politics in the same school.
1, The fundamental problem that there is no real comparative political studies in China is because most scholars don’t want to engage in serious comparative studies. There are also many reasons, but we can’t attribute all the reasons to just “ideological red zone”. Though “ideological red zone” does exist to some degree, but these zones are not completely forbidden. Another reason is more psychological, which is the theory of the “unique China”. A large number of scholars and researchers believe that for contemporary China, it is most necessary and urgent to study the absolute sense of “China issues” However, only when we put China’s experiences in a comparative horizon with other countries, can we effectively understand and interpret phenomenons in China. We should avoid making China “unique” or generalize the West.
1, 造成中国比较政治学基本上没有真正的比较政治研究的最根本问题是大部分学者不愿从事切实的比较研究。原因也许很多，但是，我们不能将这一结果全部归咎于“意识形态禁区”。尽管可能存在一定的“意识形态禁区”，但这些禁区也不是全面的“禁飞区”。不愿从事切实的比较研究还有一个是心理层面的原因，那就是“中国例外论”。相当一部分的学者和科研管理者认为，对于当代中国而言，研究近乎绝对意义上的“中国问题”才是最必要和最紧迫的。但只有将中国经验纳入和其他国家的比较的视野之中，才能有效地理解和解释中国现象，避免将中国“特殊化”或者将西方“普遍化”。
2, There are flaws when scholars quote research. Among most of the essays published in the field of Comparative Political Studies in China, there is little literature review. Even if there is any, they either completely ignore Western studies, or the literature they choose in English is very random. They never really mastered the most important theories or examples in the research area. Also, among the research results scholars quote from other countries, they highlight European and American counterparts, and pay much less attention on Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe. But actually the comparative studies of the third world has always been the hotspot and highlight of comparative political studies.
2, 学者引用文献存在误区
在国内发表的大量比较政治学的论文中，根本没有文献回顾部分。即便有一些做了文献回顾，所回顾的文献要么完全忽视西方的研究，要么所引用的英文文献有很强的随机性，并没有完全掌握其所涉猎的研究问题领域中最重要的理论和范式。再次，在国外研究成果的引介方面有重欧美而轻其他之嫌，对拉美、非洲、东南亚、东欧等地区的关注度明显偏低，而事实上对于第三世界的比较研究一直是比较政治学的热点和亮点。
3, The progress of China’s comparative political studies not only requires great academic horizon and sound scientific methodology, but it also relies on relevant political support. Generally speaking, real comparative political studies need a relatively long period of time, a relatively larger number of research fund and resources, and generally we need teamwork. Therefore, besides scholars’ efforts on their side, external factors and systematic encouragement is also important.
3, 中国比较政治学研究的进步不仅需要宏大的学术视野、科学的研究方法，也需要相应的制度安排。通常而言，真正的比较政治研究科研周期相对较长，需要投入相对多的科研经费和研究资源，常常需要团队合作。因此，除了学者通过自身努力可以改善的方面之外，一些重要的外部因素和制度激励也是非常重要的。
China Reading Weekly and Journal of Literature, History and Philosophy co-organized a forum on the top 10 hot topics in social sciences
Here is some quotes from an article on the forum, synthesizing history professor Xiao Gongqin of Shanghai Normal University
Professor Xiao Gongqin started from talking about changes in China’s academia.
He pointed out that in the beginning of 1980s, China’s academic scene could be concluded as having three characteristics: the first is emotional. As soon as you start talking, others will criticize based on their own version of “freedom”. The second is Westernized, extremely anti-tradition. The third is that academic achievement is relatively vague. They didn’t need rationality. You could voice as long as you have some feelings. However, today’s academia is drastically different. The first difference is that it has rich accumulation of knowledge, which is not built up in one day or two, but in the past a couple of decades. The second is that everyone has their own specialized field, and when they are talking about things in their field they all have their solid stands. The third is that they are relatively calm. Calm things are replacing emotional things. Being emotional can’t solve problems anymore.
萧功秦教授回顾中国学术界的变化谈起
他指出，80年代初期，中国的学术生态可以概括为三点：第一是情绪化，只要你说一句话，其他人马上本着各自的“自由”情怀批判几句。第二是西化，极端的反传统。第三是学理比较空虚。不需要学理性，只要你有感觉就可以发言。但是，今天的学术界已经有了很大的不同。第一点不同是，它有非常深厚的知识积淀，这个积淀不是一天两天完成的，而是二三十年沉淀下来的。第二，每个人都有自己的专业领域，在专业领域说的话都非常有道理。第三，比较冷静，冷静的东西已经取代了情绪化的东西，情绪已经不能解决问题了。
According to professor Xiao, these following points of consensus are being formed in academia: first, the Western package is losing its overarching position, leftists and rightists both consider it as one regional school of thought and have learned to extract the good and get rid of the bad. The second, local Chinese culture is considered as useful resources, rather than something that could be completely thrown away. Leftists, rightists and the middle-way believers all start to have this recognition. As time goes by this recognition is becoming increasingly salient. For example, concepts of equality, harmony and justice in the core socialist value system is particularly highlighted in Confucian culture. Among Liberalism there is Confucian Liberalism (like professor Huang Yushun has said), which highlights that everyone’s internal freedom could be the foundation of choice. The third, can we say there is an authoritarian Confucian political model? The Confucian political concept of “choosing the capable” and the rulers give moral constraints and attach meanings of life is actually a very important strategy.
据萧教授观察思想界至少正在形成如下几点共识：第一，西方那一套已经丧失其普世性地位，左派、右派都开始将其作为一套地方性知识取其精华、去其糟粕。第二，中国本土的文化被视为可资吸收的资源，不是完全可以抛弃的东西。左派、中派、右派都已经开始有这种认识，而随着时间的增长这种认识只会越来越广泛。比方说社会主义核心价值观中的平等、和谐、公正，这在儒家文化当中是特别强调的。自由派当中开始出现儒家自由主义(如黄玉顺教授所言)，强调人心内在的自由可以作为选择的基础。第三，是不是可以说有一个儒家的威权政治模式?儒家“选贤任能”的贤能政治的理念，以及在对当政者进行道德的约束同时赋予其人生价值，对于当政者实际上非常重要。
No comments:
Post a Comment