近代中国转型的三重困境——兼论西方话语解释的本土溯源  

The Triple Plights of Modern China’s Transformation——On the Local Origin of Western Discourse Interpretation

作　　者：杨金客 Yang Jinke(Academy of Marxism,Jiangsu University of Technology,Changzhou,China)

机构地区：[1]江苏理工学院马克思主义学院,江苏常州213001

出　　处：《社会科学论坛》2022年第3期198-210,共13页Tribune of Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目《民国时期淮河流域灾害文献搜集、整理与数据库建设》阶段性成果,项目编号:18ZDA196;国家社会科学基金青年项目《工业文明与江南乡村社会权力变迁研究(1900—1937)》阶段性成果,项目编号:21CZS052。

摘　　要：近几十年来,西方一些学者运用各种概念与理论用于解释中国传统社会向现代转型问题,如“冲击——回应“”中国中心观“”高水平均衡陷阱“”内卷化“”斯密型动力”等。它们对经济因素、国家角色和儒学等在社会转型过程中的独特视角,造成了一种西方学者比中国人还了解中国的印象。然而事实远非如此,西方学者的一些观点和论断在20世纪三四十年代中国本土知识分子那里已有或模糊或清晰的体现。从历时性角度看,两者的理论与方法虽各有不同,却存在关联和共通之处。In recent decades, China has imported various concepts and theories from abroad to explain the transition from traditional Chinese society to modern society, such as “impact-response” “China-centered approach” “high-level equilibrium trap” “involution”“smithian dynamics” and etc. And their deep understanding of the role of the country and the inherent characteristics of Confucianism,has created an impression that Western scholars understand China better than the Chinese. However, the facts are far from the case.Some views and judgments of the Western scholars were vaguely or clearly reflected in Chinese intellectuals in the 1930s and 1940s.From a diachronic perspective, although the theories and methods of the two are different, there are connections and similarities.

关 键 词：内卷化 土地资本 农村公社 国家 儒学 

分 类 号：K26[历史地理—历史学]