制造“道不拾遗”:西汉中后期两种地方治理模式的竞争——以《汉书》为中心的考察

Making“Honesty Prevails Throughout Society”:Competition of Two Local Governance Models in the Middle and Late Western Han Dynasty——A Study Centered on Han Shu

“道不拾遗”作为《汉书》描述良好社会秩序和优良地方治理的词汇,在《酷吏传》和《循吏传》中均有出现。这种秩序的形成有两种路径:一是酷吏凭借法律深文周纳残酷施政,严格控制社会所塑造的“法家威权制民型”地方治理模式;二是循吏推行教化安顿民生,温和施政所形塑的“儒家德化养民型”地方治理模式。这两种地方治理模式是共存的,都是中央政府所允许的,但两者之间又存在着某种难以调和的双重结构性紧张:一是就作为治理地方的手段而言,两者虽然都可以带来地方秩序的稳定,但是两者实现这种目的的策略、技术和方式却存在着较大差异;二是就其与国家治理的实际主导思想及其实践的关系而言,两者虽然都在一定程度上为国家所接受和认可,但与国家治理的实际主导思想和治理实践的关系有亲疏之别。两种地方治理模式并存的结构性原因表现在两个层面:一是中央层面的关于国家治理的表达和实践之间的背离,这关涉国家治理的意识形态在理想与现实之间的紧张;二是地方层面的在中央集权体制下地方所具有的自主权,这关涉国家结构形式问题中的权力集中与分散之间的张力。

As a vocabulary describing the good social order and good local governance in Han Shu,it has appeared in both the biography of ruthless officials and the biography of upright officials.There are two ways for the formation of this order:the local governance mode of“Legalist authoritarianism”shaped by the ruthless officials relying on the deep knowledge of laws and strict control of cruel administration,and the local governance mode of“Confucian paternalism”shaped by the officials’implementation of education,settling people’s livelihood and moderate administration.These two local governance modes coexist and are permitted by the central government,but there are some double structural tensions between them.First,as a tool of governance,both of them can bring about stability of local order,but the strategies,technologies and methods to achieve this goal are also difficult to reconcile.Second,in terms of its relationship with the actual dominant thought and practice of state governance,although both of them are accepted and recognized by the country to some extent,the relationship between them and the actual dominant thought and practice of state governance is different.The structural reasons for the coexistence of the two local governance modes lie in two aspects:one is the deviation between the expression and practice of state governance at the central level,which concerns the tension between ideals and reality of state governance,and the other is the autonomy of local governments at the local level under the centralized system,which concerns the tension between centralization and decentralization of power in the form of state structure.