城市史研究的两种视野:内向性与外向性

熊月之认为,中国传统城市与欧洲古代城市的根本不同之处,在于自古以来城乡文化一致性、城乡行政一体性的特点没有改变;即使近代通商口岸的出现,强烈地冲击了中国传统城市的体制,但城乡文化一致性在通商口岸仍有顽强表现,城乡行政一体性在非通商口岸依然存在。戴一峰认为,目前城市史研究存在着两种不同的视野——内向性视野和外向性视野,而中国的大多数学者更偏好于内向性视野,应当在今后的城市史研究中大力提倡内向性视野与外向性视野的交叉并用。张利民认为,近代以来城乡对立的关系不仅没有得到缓解,反而出现城乡发展脱节、城乡差别迅速扩大状态;因为自身动力不足和得不到乡村的支持,结果是限制了近代中国城市的整体发展水平。何一民认为,科学地划分中国城市史的不同发展时期,对于研究中国城市历史十分重要;而以生产力和生产技术的变革作为划分城市分期的标准,可以将中国城市历史划分为农业时代、工业时代、信息时代三个时期。陈蕴茜认为,中国城市转型是社会系统转型的一个缩影,它涉及社会、政治、经济、文化、记忆、认同等众多层面,而"空间"却是可以充分展示这种转型现代性特征的重要维度;将"空间"引入中国城市史研究,能够更深入地揭示中国城市演化的独特规律。

Xiong Yuezhi holds that the fundamental difference between traditional Chinese city and ancient European city lies at that the Chinese unity of urban and rural cultures,as well as urban and rural administration have not been changed since ancient times. Dai Yifeng believes that,at present,there are two views in the studies of city history,i.e.,inward view and outward view. Most Chinese scholars are favored in the inward view,and these two methods should be alternatively applied in the future studies. Zhang Limin holds that since the near-modern time,urban and rural development has been out of joint,and the gap expanded swiftly. The city's development is restricted because it is insufficient in both its own motivation and the support of rural areas. He Yimin suggests that the history of Chinese city can be divided into agricultural,industrial and information times by productive force and technology as the standard of division. Chen Yunqian believes that the unique law of the evolution of Chinese city can be revealed by a 'dimension' method introduced into the studies.