皇权·绅权·族权——兼论划清中西文化传统的界限

Imperial Power, Gentry Power and Family Power ——Both with the Discussion about the Confines between the Western and Chinese Cultural Tradition

中国与西方国家所处的人文地理环境截然不同,由此生发出迥然不同的两类国家模式。在中国式家国同构的拟血缘国家中,皇权、绅权与族权都是血缘群体共有制的产物。三者的同构性在于:它们都受自给自足小农经济基础上产生的祖权的制约——都必须遵守群体利益至上的祖宗成法。因此,三者的关系,绝不是西方国家建立在个体私有制上"公共权力"与"个体私有权"二元对立的分权关系,而是父家长专制集权相辅相成的三个方面。因而,中国的乡治与西方的自治是全然不同的两个概念,绅权也并非是国家的"授权"。

The widely different national patterns between China and the west countries are the results of their distinct cultural and geographical environments. In China with the families and the nation being constituted synchronously in the similarly consanguineous backgrounds, the imperial power, the gentry power and the family power were the outcomes of the consanguineous colonies. The three were all restricted by the ancestor power based on the self-sufficient farmer economy, that is to say, they had to obey the constituted ancestor principles with the paramount colony interests. Therefore the relationships between the three were not divided based on the dual-opposition between the individual-owned public power and privately-owned power, but the three aspects of patriarchal absolute power supplementing each other. Consequently the country government in China and the self-government in west were quietly different conceptions and the gentry power was not the authority granted by the nation.