摘要
"学术区"内部成果与外部关系的考察,是中国社会科学"反思性继承"的一项基础工作。如作者所言,"学术区"系指"被本地、外地、外国学者研究过,而形成某种学术遗产和学术风格的区域"。为在中国研究领域里推进"学术区"的再研究,本文具体比较了中国人类学研究中的"东南区"与"西南区"。在海内外中国人类学研究中,"东南区"与"西南区"本都有民族学与汉人社会研究,但在20世纪下半叶特定的历史背景下,海内外人类学、民族学研究者对两个"学术区"加以研究内容与使命的区分,致使东南的汉人社会与西南的民族相互分离,东南的"社会人类学"与西南的"民族学"相互区分。"东西分化"不乏其优点——在其格局之下,两地各自积累了对于未来中国人类学的理论思考有意义的研究成果,然而,当差异过于扩大化时,也导致了认识问题的出现:"东南区"与"西南区"出现了学术研究服务于两地"形象塑造"的倾向,致使研究者忽视了两地内部与相互之间关系的研究。借助对《史记》的一项解读,作者指出,为了深化两个"学术区"的研究,有必要重建二者之间的历史纽带,在一个更广阔的视野下,"反思地继承"东西两大"学术区"的遗产,促成一个"东西结合"的学术范式,通过历史文明、政治文化、帝国宇宙观诸方面的研究,展开"关系结构"的社会科学思考。
This article examines two existing 'academic regions' in Chinese anthropology:the Southeastern and Southwestern models of anthropology.The author points out that the 'bifurcation' of Southeastern 'complex'of communities,lineages,markets,and folk religions and Southwestern 'ways of being ethnic'has created a serious problem for the anthropology of Chinese civilization.He also argues that to further 'internal understandings'of either region,it is necessary to think 'externally' — to bring 'external relationships' into 'internal structures'.The author has written extensively on sinological anthropology and ethnology as well as Chinese social science in general.In this context,he criticizes anthropologies in China and abroad of their common negligence of the relationships which have played important roles in the configuration of the regions under the empire-turned nation.
出处
《社会学研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2008年第4期32-54,共23页
Sociological Studies
