近世鄉(xiāng)紳治理與國(guó)家權(quán)力關(guān)系研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-14 15:37
【摘要】：本文旨在探討,在中國(guó)這樣一個(gè)有著深厚傳統(tǒng)積淀同時(shí)又面向現(xiàn)代化的東方國(guó)家中,應(yīng)當(dāng)通過(guò)怎樣一種方式配置鄉(xiāng)村公共權(quán)力,才能既保證國(guó)家對(duì)基層社會(huì)的控制,又能使真正體現(xiàn)社會(huì)自主性的鄉(xiāng)村自治成為一種現(xiàn)實(shí)。選擇“鄉(xiāng)紳治理與國(guó)家權(quán)力關(guān)系”這一路徑來(lái)尋求以上問(wèn)題的解決,則是基于歷史學(xué)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)研究和法政治學(xué)的邏輯分析相結(jié)合的方法論。核心概念的界定是研究的邏輯起點(diǎn)。在眾多關(guān)于鄉(xiāng)紳的歷史敘事中,本文提煉出鄉(xiāng)紳在不同歷史時(shí)期所具備的共同特征并結(jié)合當(dāng)時(shí)的語(yǔ)境,給出了一個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)性的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),包括知識(shí)、財(cái)富和身份。其中最為根本的是身份要素,即在具有知識(shí)要素和財(cái)富要素以后,一個(gè)初步被認(rèn)同為鄉(xiāng)紳的人必須在社會(huì)行動(dòng)中獲得其公共身份。惟有如此,才能在真正意義上擁有社會(huì)權(quán)威。這也就意味著對(duì)于鄉(xiāng)紳的理解最終落實(shí)于動(dòng)態(tài)的鄉(xiāng)紳治理之中。僅從歷史學(xué)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)研究來(lái)看,鄉(xiāng)紳治理無(wú)疑是特定歷史時(shí)空下的產(chǎn)物。對(duì)鄉(xiāng)紳治理的純粹歷史研究也許僅限于分析和闡釋這一現(xiàn)象,并不預(yù)知未來(lái)。但這并不意味著我們不能透過(guò)歷史表象去探求其暗藏的潛流,當(dāng)然我們必須承認(rèn)理性和智識(shí)的限度。法政治學(xué)的邏輯分析方法的采用可以使得我們發(fā)現(xiàn)歷史上的鄉(xiāng)紳治理所蘊(yùn)涵的某種普遍性法理。本文“鄉(xiāng)紳治理”的概念來(lái)自于法政治學(xué)中的治理理論。所謂的“治理”即強(qiáng)調(diào)多元主體的共存和伙伴關(guān)系,以及彼此之間民主、協(xié)作和妥協(xié)精神�！爸卫�"在本質(zhì)上是一個(gè)公共權(quán)力的重新整合問(wèn)題,即如何在國(guó)家和社會(huì)之間合理配置公共權(quán)力,以及如何在國(guó)家和社會(huì)各自范圍內(nèi)有效的運(yùn)作權(quán)力和彼此之間進(jìn)行權(quán)力合作。鄉(xiāng)紳治理,即通過(guò)鄉(xiāng)紳的公共活動(dòng)使國(guó)家和鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì)的關(guān)系處于一種動(dòng)態(tài)的平衡之中,既滿足國(guó)家控制鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì)的需要,同時(shí)也遏制國(guó)家權(quán)力對(duì)鄉(xiāng)村的過(guò)度汲取,保護(hù)鄉(xiāng)村共同體的利益。這無(wú)疑是一種良性的國(guó)家一社會(huì)關(guān)系在鄉(xiāng)村場(chǎng)域的體現(xiàn)。在奉行專(zhuān)制集權(quán)主義的中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)政治中,鄉(xiāng)紳治理有效發(fā)揮作用的關(guān)鍵在于處理好與國(guó)家權(quán)力之間的關(guān)系。基于這一前提,本文以一個(gè)歷史的長(zhǎng)鏡頭考察了近世以來(lái),即16世紀(jì)中期到20世紀(jì)中期,鄉(xiāng)紳治理與國(guó)家權(quán)力之間的互動(dòng)與博弈關(guān)系。在明清時(shí)期傳統(tǒng)國(guó)家背景下,鄉(xiāng)紳治理同時(shí)作為國(guó)家權(quán)力的延伸和防御國(guó)家權(quán)力的屏障而存在,其本身就體現(xiàn)了國(guó)家與社會(huì)的疊加、共存和合作。正是鄉(xiāng)紳治理“調(diào)節(jié)器"作用的發(fā)揮使得龐大的帝國(guó)機(jī)器得以靈活運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。在晚清的政治危機(jī)之下,雖然鄉(xiāng)紳治理僭越國(guó)家權(quán)力的情況時(shí)有發(fā)生,但總體上仍值得國(guó)家權(quán)力的信任與依賴(lài)。兩者的聯(lián)手使得清王朝暫時(shí)渡過(guò)了內(nèi)部的危機(jī),迎來(lái)了一個(gè)新的世紀(jì)。但20世紀(jì)上半葉的大變局終于將鄉(xiāng)紳治理與國(guó)家權(quán)力之間的合作共存關(guān)系徹底打破。清末民初的現(xiàn)代化進(jìn)程中,一方面國(guó)家權(quán)力企圖建立對(duì)鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì)的直接控制而必然打壓傳統(tǒng)的鄉(xiāng)紳治理,另一方面國(guó)家法層面上“工具化”的鄉(xiāng)村自治的推行導(dǎo)致了鄉(xiāng)紳治理的異化。最終,在被國(guó)家與鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì)同時(shí)背棄的境遇中,鄉(xiāng)紳治理走向了消亡。鄉(xiāng)紳治理所造就的國(guó)家與鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì)之間的“緩沖層”不復(fù)存在。國(guó)家權(quán)力直接面對(duì)鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì),但卻并沒(méi)有建構(gòu)起現(xiàn)代國(guó)家一公民關(guān)系——這一西方意義上民族國(guó)家所懷揣的理想。反而是前者變得恣意妄為,后者也逐漸退到了忍耐的最底線。顛覆性的革命在鄉(xiāng)村醞釀并最終爆發(fā)。從此,中國(guó)走上全能主義政治的道路,直至20世紀(jì)80年代村民自治的發(fā)生。在西方市民社會(huì)話語(yǔ)下,鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì)的公共權(quán)力重組問(wèn)題被重新提起。在憲政意義上,村民自治作為社會(huì)自治是國(guó)家與社會(huì)的關(guān)系在鄉(xiāng)村場(chǎng)域的反映。但是,在法理上可以與國(guó)家權(quán)力的抗衡的社會(huì)自治權(quán)在鄉(xiāng)村現(xiàn)實(shí)中難以成為一種實(shí)然。以二元對(duì)立為基礎(chǔ)的早期世紀(jì)市民社會(huì)理論顯然無(wú)法解決中國(guó)問(wèn)題,倒是20世紀(jì)的公共領(lǐng)域理論與中國(guó)有著某種契合。公共領(lǐng)域的出現(xiàn)標(biāo)志著西方憲政價(jià)值的變動(dòng),即不再一味地強(qiáng)調(diào)國(guó)家與社會(huì)、公域與私域之間的嚴(yán)格界分,而是倡導(dǎo)界分基礎(chǔ)上的融合與滲透。這一新憲政價(jià)值對(duì)于中國(guó)的憲政建設(shè)而言具有重要的意義。因?yàn)樗粌H符合中國(guó)當(dāng)下的國(guó)家與社會(huì)的相處狀態(tài),而且也讓人們?cè)俣扔浧鹆酥袊?guó)的歷史傳統(tǒng)——鄉(xiāng)紳治理。鄉(xiāng)紳治理在本質(zhì)上反映了國(guó)家與社會(huì)之間的合作共生關(guān)系。對(duì)于鄉(xiāng)村共同體而言,鄉(xiāng)紳治理在特定的歷史條件下的確謀求并實(shí)現(xiàn)了鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì)的自由和自治。如果我們承認(rèn)鄉(xiāng)村自由和自治是人民主權(quán)的精髓,為保護(hù)這種民主政治的草根而制約國(guó)家權(quán)力是憲政的精髓,那么鄉(xiāng)紳治理,通過(guò)某種創(chuàng)造性的轉(zhuǎn)化,就將有可能在新的歷史條件下成為通向憲政的中國(guó)范例。如果中國(guó)憲政的未來(lái)圖景是一幅來(lái)自于中國(guó)社會(huì)變遷自主驅(qū)動(dòng)且內(nèi)容和形式連貫一致的圖畫(huà),那么通過(guò)歷史的方式將有助于這一圖景的構(gòu)建。正是在這一意義上,我們相信,鄉(xiāng)紳治理既是經(jīng)驗(yàn)的,又是理論的。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to discuss how to allocate rural public power in a way that has a profound traditional accumulation and modernized Oriental countries, which can not only guarantee the control of the country to the grass-roots society, but also make the rural autonomy that truly embodies the autonomy of the society. The path of the relationship with state power to seek the solution of the above problems is based on the methodology of combining historical experience and logical analysis of political science. The definition of the core concept is the logical starting point of the study. A structural definition standard, including knowledge, wealth and identity, is given in the context of the same characteristics. The most fundamental is the identity element, that is, after the elements of knowledge and wealth, a person who is initially identified as the gentry must obtain its public identity in social action. Only in this way can it be true. It means that there is a social authority in meaning. This means that the understanding of the gentry is finally implemented in the dynamic government of the gentry. Only from the historical experience study, the gentry governance is undoubtedly the product of the specific historical time and space. The pure historical study of the gentry governance may be limited to the analysis and interpretation of this phenomenon, but it does not predict the future. This does not mean that we can not explore the hidden undercurrent through the historical image. Of course, we must recognize the limits of rationality and wisdom. The adoption of logical analysis methods of law and administration can make us find some universal jurisprudence implied in the governance of the gentry in history. The concept of "gentry governance" in this article comes from the law and administration. Governance theory, which emphasizes the coexistence and partnership of pluralistic subjects, and the spirit of democracy, cooperation and compromise between each other. "Governance" is essentially a reintegration of public power, that is, how to reasonably fit public power between the state and society, and how to be in the country and the society. The effective operation power within the scope and the power cooperation between each other. The gentry governance, that is, through the public activities of the gentry, makes the relationship between the country and the country society in a dynamic balance, not only to meet the needs of the state to control the rural society, but also to contain the excessive absorption of the state power to the countryside, and to protect the interests of the rural community. This is undoubtedly the embodiment of a benign state of social relations in the rural field. In the traditional Chinese politics which pursues autocratic totalitarianism, the key to the effective play of the gentry governance is to deal with the relationship with the state power. Based on this premise, this article examines the sixteenth Century, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world. In the middle of the twentieth Century, the interaction and game relationship between the gentry governance and the state power. Under the traditional national background of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the gentry governance also existed as the extension of the state power and the defense of the state power, which itself reflected the superposition, coexistence and cooperation of the state and the society. In the political crisis of the late Qing Dynasty, although the gentry had taken place in the situation of overstepping the power of the state, it was still worth the trust and dependence of the state power in general. The combination of the two made the Qing Dynasty temporarily override the internal crisis and usher in a new century. But in twentieth Century, the Qing Dynasty came to a new century. The big change in the upper half of the first half finally broke the coexisting relationship between the gentry governance and the state power. In the process of the modernization of the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republic of China, on the one hand, the state power tried to establish direct control of the rural society and inevitably pressed the traditional squire governance. On the other hand, the "instrumental" rural autonomy was pushed on the national law level. It led to the alienation of the government of the gentry. In the end, in the situation that the country and the rural society were abandoned at the same time, the gentry governance was dying out. The "buffer layer" between the country and the rural society created by the gentry governance did not exist. The state power faced the rural society directly, but it did not construct a modern national citizen relationship. In this Western sense of the nation, the former became unscrupulous, and the latter gradually returned to the bottom line of patience. The subversive revolution was brewed in the countryside and finally broke out. From then on, China went on the path of Almighty politics until the occurrence of villagers' autonomy in the 1980s. Under the western civil society discourse. In the sense of constitutionalism, the autonomy of villagers as a social autonomy is a reflection of the relationship between the state and the society in the rural field. However, the social autonomy, which can be countered with the power of the state in the legal theory, is difficult to be a reality in the rural reality. It is based on the two yuan opposition. The theory of civil society in the century is obviously unable to solve the Chinese problem, but the public domain theory of the twentieth Century has a certain agreement with China. The emergence of the public sphere marks the change of the western constitutional value, that is, the strict boundary between the state and society, the public domain and the private domain, but the integration and infiltration of the advocacy division. This new constitutional value is of great significance to the construction of constitutional government in China. It not only conforms to the state of the country and society at present in China, but also reminds people of the Chinese historical tradition, the gentry governance. The gentry governance reflects the cooperative symbiotic relationship between the state and the society in essence. In the country community, the gentry governance has indeed sought and realized the freedom and autonomy of the rural society under certain historical conditions. If we admit that the freedom and autonomy of the country are the essence of the sovereignty of the people and the essence of the protection of the grassroots of this democratic politics, the state power is the essence of constitutional government, then the gentry is governed by some kind of creativity. If the future picture of Chinese constitutionalism is a picture from the independent drive of Chinese social change and a coherent and consistent form of content and form, it will help the construction of this picture in the way of history. It is in this sense that we are in this sense. It is believed that the government of the gentry is both experience and theory.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：C912.82
，
本文編號(hào)：2122113
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to discuss how to allocate rural public power in a way that has a profound traditional accumulation and modernized Oriental countries, which can not only guarantee the control of the country to the grass-roots society, but also make the rural autonomy that truly embodies the autonomy of the society. The path of the relationship with state power to seek the solution of the above problems is based on the methodology of combining historical experience and logical analysis of political science. The definition of the core concept is the logical starting point of the study. A structural definition standard, including knowledge, wealth and identity, is given in the context of the same characteristics. The most fundamental is the identity element, that is, after the elements of knowledge and wealth, a person who is initially identified as the gentry must obtain its public identity in social action. Only in this way can it be true. It means that there is a social authority in meaning. This means that the understanding of the gentry is finally implemented in the dynamic government of the gentry. Only from the historical experience study, the gentry governance is undoubtedly the product of the specific historical time and space. The pure historical study of the gentry governance may be limited to the analysis and interpretation of this phenomenon, but it does not predict the future. This does not mean that we can not explore the hidden undercurrent through the historical image. Of course, we must recognize the limits of rationality and wisdom. The adoption of logical analysis methods of law and administration can make us find some universal jurisprudence implied in the governance of the gentry in history. The concept of "gentry governance" in this article comes from the law and administration. Governance theory, which emphasizes the coexistence and partnership of pluralistic subjects, and the spirit of democracy, cooperation and compromise between each other. "Governance" is essentially a reintegration of public power, that is, how to reasonably fit public power between the state and society, and how to be in the country and the society. The effective operation power within the scope and the power cooperation between each other. The gentry governance, that is, through the public activities of the gentry, makes the relationship between the country and the country society in a dynamic balance, not only to meet the needs of the state to control the rural society, but also to contain the excessive absorption of the state power to the countryside, and to protect the interests of the rural community. This is undoubtedly the embodiment of a benign state of social relations in the rural field. In the traditional Chinese politics which pursues autocratic totalitarianism, the key to the effective play of the gentry governance is to deal with the relationship with the state power. Based on this premise, this article examines the sixteenth Century, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world, in the middle of the world. In the middle of the twentieth Century, the interaction and game relationship between the gentry governance and the state power. Under the traditional national background of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the gentry governance also existed as the extension of the state power and the defense of the state power, which itself reflected the superposition, coexistence and cooperation of the state and the society. In the political crisis of the late Qing Dynasty, although the gentry had taken place in the situation of overstepping the power of the state, it was still worth the trust and dependence of the state power in general. The combination of the two made the Qing Dynasty temporarily override the internal crisis and usher in a new century. But in twentieth Century, the Qing Dynasty came to a new century. The big change in the upper half of the first half finally broke the coexisting relationship between the gentry governance and the state power. In the process of the modernization of the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republic of China, on the one hand, the state power tried to establish direct control of the rural society and inevitably pressed the traditional squire governance. On the other hand, the "instrumental" rural autonomy was pushed on the national law level. It led to the alienation of the government of the gentry. In the end, in the situation that the country and the rural society were abandoned at the same time, the gentry governance was dying out. The "buffer layer" between the country and the rural society created by the gentry governance did not exist. The state power faced the rural society directly, but it did not construct a modern national citizen relationship. In this Western sense of the nation, the former became unscrupulous, and the latter gradually returned to the bottom line of patience. The subversive revolution was brewed in the countryside and finally broke out. From then on, China went on the path of Almighty politics until the occurrence of villagers' autonomy in the 1980s. Under the western civil society discourse. In the sense of constitutionalism, the autonomy of villagers as a social autonomy is a reflection of the relationship between the state and the society in the rural field. However, the social autonomy, which can be countered with the power of the state in the legal theory, is difficult to be a reality in the rural reality. It is based on the two yuan opposition. The theory of civil society in the century is obviously unable to solve the Chinese problem, but the public domain theory of the twentieth Century has a certain agreement with China. The emergence of the public sphere marks the change of the western constitutional value, that is, the strict boundary between the state and society, the public domain and the private domain, but the integration and infiltration of the advocacy division. This new constitutional value is of great significance to the construction of constitutional government in China. It not only conforms to the state of the country and society at present in China, but also reminds people of the Chinese historical tradition, the gentry governance. The gentry governance reflects the cooperative symbiotic relationship between the state and the society in essence. In the country community, the gentry governance has indeed sought and realized the freedom and autonomy of the rural society under certain historical conditions. If we admit that the freedom and autonomy of the country are the essence of the sovereignty of the people and the essence of the protection of the grassroots of this democratic politics, the state power is the essence of constitutional government, then the gentry is governed by some kind of creativity. If the future picture of Chinese constitutionalism is a picture from the independent drive of Chinese social change and a coherent and consistent form of content and form, it will help the construction of this picture in the way of history. It is in this sense that we are in this sense. It is believed that the government of the gentry is both experience and theory.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：C912.82
，
本文編號(hào)：2122113
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/shgj/2122113.html
最近更新
教材專(zhuān)著
