加州学派与工业资本主义的兴起

California School and the Question of the “Great Divergence”

欧美新一代学者(即所谓"加州学派")认为欧亚文明的发展始终处于同一步调,中国直到18世纪仍与西方一样具有产生工业资本主义的可能,而工业资本主义率先发生在英格兰具有非常大的偶然性。其实,虽然早先的欧洲中心论(即,文艺复兴后的西方世界充满活力,而非西方地区则落后或停滞不前的论点)是完全错误的,但"加州学派"的观点也有失偏颇。具体地说,工业资本主义是在以下条件下在英格兰发生的:国家掌握了一支主导世界的海军;资产阶级拥有自主的政治和思想形态,以及高度制度化的产权;理论/形式理性和个人利益导向的工具理性主义逐渐成为精英共识;科学与技术发明不断加速发展。而这些在晚期中华帝国都没有发生。晚期中华帝国的经济繁荣得益于帝国有力的统治、务实的商业政策、庞大的人口和土地,以及长期的王朝中期繁荣。这些优势使经济发挥出了极大的潜能,但却不能为中国带来工业资本主义。

Against the California school scholars, this essay argues that while the rise of industrial capitalism in England in the nineteenth century was not inevitable, China had no possibility to have an indigenous breakthrough to industrial capitalism in the nineteenth century or any time before or immediately after. Although commerce flourished and people in the more prosperous parts of China enjoyed high living standards, late imperial China was still a place where technological innovations were not rewarded, theoretical/formal rationalities were underdeveloped, and most importantly, Neo- Confucian state ideology faced no significant challenges and merchants were unable to use their wealth to gain significant amount of political, military and ideological power to counterbalance the power of the state. What sustained late imperial China＇s splendid economy was not the weakening of the Neo- Confucian ecumene and rise of bourgeoisie power in ways similar to what happened in Europe, but the empire＇s huge market （due to its large territory and population） and the peace provided by a long- lasting mid-dynasty political stability. China did not develop into, but rather was dragged into the age of industrialization and modernity by the forces of Western and Japanese imperialism.