战争与文明:欧洲“大转型”之争的历史社会学反思  

War and Civilization:A Reflection on the Great Transformation in Europe from the Perspective of Historical Sociology

作　　者：王庆明 孙美玲 Wang Qingming;Sun Meiling

机构地区：[1]南开大学周恩来政府管理学院社会学系

出　　处：《社会发展研究》2022年第2期107-122,244,共17页Journal of Social Development

基　　金：南开大学文科发展基金项目(项目编号:ZB21BZ0340;主持人:王庆明)、南开大学亚洲研究中心项目(项目编号:AS2008;主持人:王庆明)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：波兰尼认为19世纪欧洲的大转型时代是“百年和平”的,其发展的内在动力源于“市场—社会”的双向运动。哈尔珀琳批评波兰尼忽略了阶级视角,并提出了相反的观点:19世纪战乱不断,其发展源自“对内剥削—对外扩张”的二元主义。本文从历史社会学视角探查发现:对战争概念界定的不同导致了哈尔珀琳和波兰尼不同的战争叙事;二人对资本主义的不同分析视角导致了他们对工业文明内在动力的认识差异。波兰尼并未忽略阶级,他反对绝对的经济决定论,秉持文化阶级论。虽没提出大转型的具体条件和机制,但他对市场体系内在矛盾的分析有穿透历史的现实意义。Karl Polanyi considered the era of the great transformation in Europe in the 19th century a“hundred years’peace,”with an internal drive of development stemming from the interplay between market and society.Sandra Halperin criticized Polanyi for ignoring the class perspective.She put forward the opposite point of view:the 19th century was a period of continuous wars and development that stemmed from a dualism of internal exploitation and external expansion.From the perspective of historical sociology,this paper suggests that Halperin’s and Polanyi’s different definitions of wars lead to divergent war narratives.Moreover,their conflicting analytic perspectives on capitalism led to their disagreement on the internal dynamics of industrial civilization.Polanyi did not ignore class but opposed economic determinism and adhered to the theory of cultural class.Halperin emphasized that the disembedding of the economy from society and the re-embedding of the economy into society were two great transformations in the 19th century.

关 键 词：战争与文明 大转型 波兰尼 哈尔珀琳 历史社会学 

分 类 号：C91[经济管理]