中国现代国家的起源

by Philip A. Kuhn, 孔飞力, 陈兼 (Translator)

孔飞力以政治参与、政治竞争、政治控制为主轴，将中国现代国家形成与发展的“根本性议程”归结为三组相互关联的问题或矛盾：政治参与的扩展与国家权力加强之间的矛盾（本书第一章）；政治竞争的展开与公共利益的维护之间的矛盾（第二章）；国家的财政汲取能力同地方社会财政需求之间的矛盾（第三章）。这三组问题并非始于清代，而是历朝历代都要面对的，但却跨越了朝代鼎革一直存在到帝制晚期，并在帝制崩溃后继续成为20世纪中国现代国家构建时的基本问题。

孔飞力认为，当政治环境的变化对社会形成重大威胁时，人们便会围绕着种种“根本性议程”开始形成共识。在中国帝制晚期，深植于历史文化之中的种种知识资源，是在怎样的历史环境下，经过哪些人的努力，导致了向着现代性、具有中国特质的“现代国家”渐次发生转变？孔飞力通过论述魏源、冯桂芬、梁启超、章太炎等人的思想，结合晚清以来相关的历史叙事，较为宏观地回应了这一问题。

孔飞力对这部《中国现代国家的起源》非常自负。相对于孔的另外三部专著和其他专题论文，这本书确实很不寻常，此书的初稿是讲座稿，孔飞力别的论著均为实证研究；在本书中作者试图对一些较为宏观的问题作出正面回答，而不再隐藏在具体问题的研究背后。总的来说，孔飞力治学的宗旨，他所思考的核心问题，在此书中有最为直接的展现。

书中各章是以作者在法兰西学院所作的系列讲座（1994年）为基础改写而成，1999年先以法文出版，英文版于2002年推出，此次中文版首次问世。

Genres: China, History, Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, Asia

150 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Philip A. Kuhn (Chinese name: simplified Chinese: 孔飞力, 孔复礼; traditional Chinese: 孔飛力, 孔復禮; born September 9, 1933) was an American academic, sinologist and the Francis Lee Higginson Professor of History and of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, Emeritus, at Harvard University.

Reviews

[Hzz15743]

中國現代國家的起源.pdf
goodreads:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
豆瓣:https://book.douban.com/subject/25797...

下载1:https://ebook2.lorefree.com/book?acco...
下载2:http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=8...
_________________________________

译者导言 https://www.jiemian.com/article/54096...

[Cpen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Modern political system is generally thought to be brought to China by westerners. However the author tapped into writings of Chinese intellects in late Qing to explore the ‘Chinese root’ of subsequent modernisation efforts by the Republic and the People’s Republic. Although the account was unconvincing in terms of establishing a Chinese origins of modern Chinese state, it did however illustrate attempts of literati, who prioritised national interests, on addressing problems of their era and how did these proposals reconcile with western political ideas.

One surprising thing about the book is it shed lights on the plight of literati under the framework of civil service examination. The author mentioned there were a lot of literati who failed to secure a job in government. Huge amount of intellects, who share same culture status with officials but possess a much inferior position in power gradient. It is foreseeable that unemployment and social instability will be the consequences between this huge mismatch between vacancies offered by government and the competition. Would be interesting to read a book that probe deeper into this issue!

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philip Kuhn short essay on Chinese government is a excellent short read. He is a Qing expert and he begins with the problems of the late Qianlong period on onwards to the example of Wei Yuan in the 19th century.

He has a detailed discussion of the elite of the Qing period, the literati as well as the relationship to the clerks.

[Socrates · Rating 4 out of 5]

还是不能接受把国家作一体行动者分析，三大矛盾和不少细节论断，都很难说是条分缕析的上升到了国家层面的普遍化；及，为什么那三大矛盾是唯三的、“根本”的？孔飞力评论“魏源将诠释《诗经》当作发表政治评论的手段”（35/36），我有点怀疑孔飞力也将诠释晚清史料当成了阐发西方现代性的手段，虽然我读着非常有启发。他自觉抵制西方现代性的学理霸权，但他的概念框架、理论关怀皆出自那一套学术训练。我觉得，无根据的崇拜或敌视西方现代性，自煎于这些西方话语体系下的宏大议题，不如反刍文化焦虑/政治焦虑的来源（我没这焦虑，但见过有的人），或“我所处的这个社群有哪些微观问题”，解决问题的途上，如果西方现代性恰巧是良药，那就吃，不是就不吃。能否秉这种思路，运本土概念理论写根本性议程的历史？比较历史分析的手法可堪把玩。

[Emily Yang · Rating 5 out of 5]

导读可以不看。最末一章对比魏源和梁启超改革主张的异同高屋建瓴，他们各自的主张里各自的局限，就是这个大国一百多年的现代化之路如此泥泞不堪的原因吧

[Harry Toube · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential work for any reader seriously interested in Chinese history or politics. Radically original and utterly brilliant. Will be reading much more Kuhn in the future!

[peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

i like kuhn a lot. this is one of those end of a career academic works synthesizing a lifetime of research.

[Jessica Zu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Totally love Kuhn analysis of Chinese governmentality--with an incisive view on the key constitutional issues of big China from late Qing till Mao's era.

[ggarlic · Rating 4 out of 5]

讲建制性议程的

[Tianxiao · Rating 5 out of 5]

现代国家在中国的诞生，这个说起来有点拗口的问题，孔飞力通过四篇文章阐述其特点、过程以及根源问题。个别地方的翻译略生硬，但总体可读性还是较高的。