日本近代化挫折的制度性因素分析——历史制度主义的视角

An Analysis of the Institutional Factors of Japan’s Modernization Setback from the Historical Institutionalist Perspective

新制度主义中的历史制度主义重视历史发展的脉络,同时强调制度的连续性。不同于利用日本独特概念及语言分析日本特殊性的文化论、近代化论,历史制度主义试图结合各国特殊性与普遍性来分析和论述日本历史发展过程。按照新制度主义,尽管日本明治时期伊藤博文提出的“机务六条”带有浓厚的立宪君主制色彩,但为使普通民众具有国家与国民的意识,明治政府费尽心思将天皇塑造为近代国家象征,甚至将其作为“现人神”;在明治时期,最重要的非制度决策主体是“元老”,由此形成了十分重要的非制度性决策过程的“元老会议”;进入昭和时代以后,首相权限较弱、内阁难以控制军部等致命制度性缺陷逐步暴露,遂成为日本后来失败的重要原因。

Historical institutionalism,a branch of neo-institutionalism,values the lineage of historical development while emphasizing the continuity of institutions.Unlike cultural theorists and modernization theorists who use uniquely Japanese concepts and language to analyze Japanese particularities,historical institutionalism attempts to combine its particularities and the universals of nations to analyze and discuss the process of Japanese historical development.According to the neo-institutionalism,despite the fact that the“Kimu Rokujo(Six articles about very important affairs of State)”proposed by Ito Hirobumi during the Meiji period were strongly tinged with the constitutional monarchy,the Meiji Administration went to great lengths to make the Mikado a symbol of the modern state,even as a“arahitogami”or deity in human form,in order to give the general public a sense of state and nationhood.In the Meiji period,the most important non-institutional decision-making body was the“genro”,which led to the formation of the“genro council”.Since the Showa period begun,fatal institutional flaws such as the weak authority of the prime minister and the difficulty of the cabinet in controlling the military authorities were gradually exposed and became important reasons for Japan’s subsequent failure.