十年通信终得见:李安宅与雷德菲尔德的通信对中国早期人类学学科建设的贡献

Ten Years of Communication Finally Be Noticed:Contributions of the Letters between Li Anzhai and Robert Redfield to the Early Construction of Chinese Anthropology

保存在芝加哥大学图书馆的罗伯特·雷德菲尔德与李安宅的通信档案,记录了两人长达13年的学术友谊。其内容对认识20世纪20-40年代中国早期人类学学科建设具有重要意义,但目前国内学界尚未发掘和利用这部分档案材料。本文将二人间通信分为四个时期,梳理了雷德菲尔德在办学、国际交流、研究资助等方面对李安宅给予的支持,呈现出20世纪前半期中国学者们如何克服诸多困难坚持办学和做研究。20世纪二三十年代的中美人类学界同时出现了“应用”取向的人类学研究,李安宅和雷德菲尔德由此结下了深厚的学术友谊。结合中国人类学研究发展走向与国际学术脉络对学者间通信档案的分析,可以让我们看到中国早期人类学建设如何在观照国际学术交流和使用学术共同体语言的同时,思考中国问题,发展“本土化”学科。

The Library of the University of Chicago holds an archive of the correspondence between Li Anzhai and Robert Redfield,documenting their 13-year-long academic friendship.These materials are also important for understanding the early construction of Chinese anthropology,which was from the 1920s to the 1940s.This paper divides the written communications between Li and Redfield between 1936 and 1949 into four phases.It explores Redfield’s support for Li,including his school running,international exchanges,and research funding,meanwhile,it provides an analysis by placing them in the context of the development trend of Chinese and international Anthropology.The letters between 1936 and 1942 were the first phase.In this stage,Li had a chance to read Robert Redfield’s research on rural change in Mexico and then contacted him for assistance.With Redfield’s help,Li reached out to Mexican scholars and local relations and successfully visited some Mexican villages for his research.From then on,1936,Redfield and Li maintained an intellectual connection that lasted for many years.In 1937,Li’s research turned to China’s frontier,and their discussions via letters between 1937 to 1942 mainly focused on how to support Li for his research with funding and academic materials.In 1942,Li took on the vital task of creating West China Union University’s Department of Sociology and the Institute of West Frontier Studies.Li Anzhai and Redfield collaborated during this period to develop the international academic exchange of the West China Frontier Institute and sought out opportunities to donate academic books and journals.Redfield made repeated attempts to find a scholarship for Li Anzhai before his second visit to the United States in 1947.This led to the final stage of their communications.In 1949,before Li Anzhai left the United States,Redfield tried to arrange his exchange at the University of Chicago.After that,ties between China and the United States shifted,and academic interactions between Li and Redfield were put on hold.From these correspondence archives,it can be inferred how scholars overcame difficulties and persisted in managing academic institutions and their research during the early construction of Chinese anthropology.For one thing,because the school’s resources were so scarce that American academic institutions provided books,periodicals,and research grants to Yanjing University,Western China Union University,and Li Anzhai personally.For another thing,Chinese scholars took advantage of the chance to study abroad and published influential works in the English-speaking academic community.Thirdly,based on global academic friendships,Redfield and his fellows supported,aided,and inspired Chinese research institutions and scholars.The three points summarized above could help us see the other side of the development of anthropology:Redfield and the University of Chicago were concerned with the issues of social change while Chinese scholars like Li Anzhai were concerned with frontier issues.This arguably showed the emergence of“applied”anthropology in both Chinese and American anthropological fields during the 1920s and 1930s.Li and Redfield’s intimate intellectual connection was also founded on these shared interests in“applied”anthropology.Through an in-depth exploration of this batch of archives,this paper aims to show how the early construction of Chinese anthropology was intertwined with international academic exchanges,thought about Chinese issues,and tried to develop a“localized”approach while using the common“language”of the academic community.