“治理内卷化”概念谬用的判定与省思  

Determination and Reflection on the Fallacious Useof the Concept of “Governance Involution”

作　　者：冯川 FENG Chuan(School of Political Science and Public Administration,Wuhan University,Wuhan,Hubei,China,430072)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学政治与公共管理学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《贵州大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第5期57-65,共9页Journal of Guizhou University(Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目“乡村振兴背景下的人居环境建设实践与生活治理机制研究”(22BSH074)。

摘　　要：“治理内卷化”是一个描述性概念,而不是用以阐述另一个事象发生原因的解释性概念。附会该概念的解释逻辑,通过“行为主体的意向”和“行为主体的主观能动性”这两个维度来论证杜赞奇以及何艳玲等学者“谬用”内卷化概念的批判策略,其有效性值得商榷。格尔茨和黄宗智分别开创了使用内卷化概念的两大范式:一是系统论范式,在系统结构的层次上对状态进行描述;二是投入—产出范式,在投入效率的层次上对状态进行描述。省思“治理内卷化”概念的切入点,须放在判断概念使用者是否清晰地进行了范式选择上。通观国内学界“治理内卷化”的相关文献,判断是否存在概念谬用情况的四条标准包括:范式是否模糊、范式是否杂糅、逻辑是否变异、是否脱离范式。“Governance involution”is a descriptive concept rather than an explanatory concept for Interpreting the causes of another event.Using the explanatory logic of the concept in a farfetched way,to argue the“fallacious use”of the concept of involution by scholars such as Du Zanqi and He Yanling through the dimensions of“the intention of the actors”and“the subjective initiative of the actors”,the validity of this critical strategy is questionable.Geertz and Huang Zongzhi have pioneered two major paradigms for utilizing the concept of involution:the systemic paradigm,which describes states at the level of system structure;and the input-output paradigm,which describes states at the level of input efficiency.To initiate the reflection on the concept of“governance involution”,it is supposed to firstly check whether the conceptual user has firmly chosen one of the paradigms.After reviewing the literature on“governance involution”in the domestic academic circle,this paper proposes four criteria for determining fallacious use of concepts,namely,ambiguous paradigm,mixed paradigm,false logic,and being out of paradigm.

关 键 词：治理内卷化 概念泛化 概念滥用 概念批判 

分 类 号：C91-03[经济管理]