陈启云 美国加州大学圣塔芭芭拉分校，中国人民大学
Chen, Qiyun, University of California, Santa Barbara; Renmin University of China
原文Original
从中西比较视野宏观中国传统社会领导层的建构和演变
历史发展分期的问题在与历史上社会领导层的结构和文化整体的演变密切相关。此三者又与人们对历史文化的理念互为表里。本文综合马克思对历史文化结构性的分析、韦伯对此的功能性的分析、和儒家与新儒家对“士大夫”的理念，论析中国传统政治、经济、学术、文化的精英领导阶层——“地主、学士、官 员”的三合一领导层——的建构和演变析述从西周的封建贵族至战国秦汉时期的“士”、魏晋六朝隋唐的“士族”，至两宋时的“士人”和明清的“绅士”的多元建构和多种功能。
马克思对西欧历史发展分划的样本用到东方（中国和印度）历史上引发了很多问题，尤其是中世纪的“封建社会”的问题。问题的关键可能是关注点过于聚焦在“社会的基/低层”。把一个时代或一种文化的属性定着于其基层，而忽视其在高层次的领导层上的变化，结果是认为此时代或此文化缺少变化发展。因而引发了“中国中古时期、封建社会”过于冗长，乃至整个中国社会发展停滞这一历史实质问题——只要基层的经济（生产活动）仍然是农业，而基层社会的主宰仍然是“地主”，中国历史便停滞在“封建社会/中古时期”；而各种关于中国文化的属性、特质、和基本结构的论述（由马克思的“亚细亚生产形态”至金观涛的中国文化的“超稳定架构”都是著例）也建立在这基本观念架构上。这问题，困扰了中国史学界数十年。本文以“领导层leading stratum”代替“统治阶级ruling class”的用意，是减低一些非学术性的意识型态价值成见，和聚焦在积极功能的分析。
文中分期的析述包括：（一）西周和东周的“封建”制度和“贵族”社会的实体和本质；（二）先秦封建的解体演化到“士为四民之首”；（三）西汉时期：由“能事其事者”的士变为“学以居位”的士；（四）后汉魏晋南北朝的门阀士族；（五）宋元以来社会领导层的转变：“士子”与“缙绅”；（六）蒙元时期中国文化与社高层的转变与胥吏阶层的形成。并附论中国西周的封建贵族与西欧中世纪封建贵族的异同，和韦伯研述的“bureaucracy”与国内通用的“官僚主义”的重大岐义。
译文Translation
The Construction and Evolution of Traditional China’s Leading Socio-political Stratum Viewed from an East-West Comparative Perspective
Reconciling the Marxian structural and the Weberian functional analytical approaches, as well as the old Confucian and modern Neo-Confucianist cultural ideals, this paper discusses the salient characteristics of traditional China’s leading socio-political stratum. Focusing on the top, rather than the base, of China’s traditional socio-political entity, the paper intends to balance the major attention paid by the Marxian Chinese historians on the bottom layer, which tends to project an image of changelessness or stagnancy in China’s history (the so-call Asiatic mode of production and Oriental despotism). Emphasizing change and continuity, the paper traces the evolution of such a socio-political stratum, from the “feudalistic aristocracy” of the Western Chou Dynasty (1111-771 B.C.), to the rise of the “commoner elite, shi” of the Warring States (376-221 B.C.) through the early Han Dynasty (ca 206-100 B.C.)，to the formation of the “great gentry” clans in the Six Dynasty through the mid-Tang Dynasty (to ca A. D. 750), and its subsequent decline and replacement by the “lesser gentry” in the Sung (950-1276), Mongol Yuan (1278-1367), and Ming Dynasty (1368-1644).
Syncretizing the Chinese traditionalist notion of the “shi/shi dafu” (Confucian literati or scholar-officials), the Marxian concept of the “fengjian dizhu”（feudalistic landlords）, and the Weberian analysis of the bureaucratic elite, the paper proposes a multi-disciplinary, multi-dimensional analysis of the enduring triangular “landlords-scholars-officials” establishment (the combination of the economic, educational-cultural, and political elites) and its multifunctional interconnection and interactions，as well as its roles vis-à-vis the despotic imperial rulers in China’s long history. It also briefly comments on the difference between the feudal warrior aristocracy of medieval Europe and the clannish fengjian (封建) aristocracy of Western Chou China, and between the Weberian concept of “bureaucracy” and the Chinese notion of “guan liao 官僚”（government functionaries）.