「多元」與「一體」：
費孝通民族理論與中華民族觀之發展

民族關係問題是中國由傳統國家向現代轉型過程中的核心問題。1988年，費孝通提出了「中華民族多元一體格局」，此說後成為中國官方處理民族關係的主流論述。關於它的研究成果數量眾多，然未有一項能基於對費氏著作和經歷的考察，貼合費氏思想和此理論本身，指出其中的思想要素與核心內涵，以至於「多元」、「一體」分別具有何種含義、如何發生關係等基本問題仍沒有得到解答。本文通過對費孝通民族思想發展變化的內在理路、形成中華民族觀的長期過程做一系統性全盤研究，得出結論如下：費孝通一生致力於用知識解決中國社會的實際問題，他早年即顯示出對功能主義理論和方法的親近，在追隨吳文藻、派克、史祿國、馬凌諾斯基求學，閱讀涂爾幹、拉德克利夫-布朗等人著作，翻譯烏格朋、韋爾斯等學者作品的過程中，他接受了實地調查的社區研究方法、形成了對中國文化具有整體性的認識、將社會類比為一個有機體、習得了體質人類學知識、注重對歷史因素和社會變遷的考察、認為社會是一個自在的實體、並產生了一種經濟決定論傾向。他認為文化具有整體性，各部分需在整體中發揮各自的功能；社會是一個有機體，各機構通過社會分工完成有機團結和整合；民族和社會都是動態發展的過程，需注重考察歷史因素和社會變遷；中國境內的不同民族具備不同的體質類型和多元的起源，在歷史過程中遷徙和融合；人的社會屬性優先於生物屬性，受到社會規範的制約，但同時無法拋棄生物基礎。功能主義是費氏的主要思想，注重實地調查是他所主張的研究方法，整體論、有機論、變遷說、社會實體說四要素在他腦海中形成一個自洽的體系，並成為費氏民族思想的基本特征。費孝通在參與「中華民族是一個」論爭中即強調了中華民族的多元起源、反對大漢族主義。他支持中共政權，長期從事新中國的民族工作，主張平等自由的民族政策，鼓勵少數民族發展自身認同和文化，擁護民族區域自治制度，提倡大規模的少數民族社會歷史調查，為促進民族地區經濟發展建言獻策，對民族識別工作產生了批判和反思。他始終沒有被改造成馬克思主義者，並在1980年代後期回歸了他的功能主義。通過長期的實踐和思考，他針對新中國成立以來民族工作中的不足和隱患，提出了「中華民族多元一體格局」。此說體現了費氏思想中的以上四要素，其核心內涵為：中華民族是一個整體的、有機的、變動的民族實體，「多元」指其中各民族是擁有多種起源、不同文化、各自認同的民族實體，它們在長期歷史發展過程中，以漢族為凝聚核心，形成文化上的交往交融、經濟上的緊密聯結，並結合近代外部因素的衝擊，成為一個具有更高層次認同的、自在自覺的「一體」。本文並在此基礎上論其成就與限制。

關鍵字

費孝通；中華民族；多元一體；民族研究；整體論

並列摘要

How to deal with the problem of the relations among the diffirent Minzus within China is one of the core issues in China's modern national transformation. In 1988, Fei Xiaotong presented "the Pluralistic Unity of the Chinese Minzu", which is now considered the most important theory to interpret the framework of the historical process of nation-building of pluralist unity and has becoming the PRC government’s official Minzu discourse. Researches about this theory are numerous, but none points out its connotations or essentials based on a total investigation of Fei’s works and practices. Till now, almost all the basic problems about this theory have been mysteries, such as “what is the unity”, “what is the pluralism”, and “what is the relationship between the unity and the pluralism”. This fundamental research studies on the internal development of Fei’s ethnic theory and his Chinese Minzu notion, then draws the following vital conclusions: Fei devoted all his life to use his own knowledge and intelligence to solve the problems of China's society, practically. He showed great intersts to functionalism in his early academic life; he followed Wu Wenzao, R. E. Park, S. M. Shirokogoroff, B. K. Malinowski’s functionalism views; he read Émile Durkheim and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown’s works; he translated W. F. Ogburn and H. G. Wells’ books. Then Fei accepted the community research method of field investigation, formed a holistic view of Chinese culture, regard the society as an organism, acquired the knowledge of physical anthropology, paid attention to the historical factors and social changes, believed that the society is an entity in it self, and had a propensity of economic determinism. Fei took a holistic view of culture and considered the primary goal of each culture is to meet the needs of the community; he also took the organismic analogy and regard each institution make intergration and organic solidarity by the division of labour in society; he treated the Minzu and the society as a process which contains a dynamic change and leads the investigation of historical factors and social changes; he thought that the different Minzu in China has different somatotypes and diverse origins, they became Chinese Minzu through the migrating and merging in historical process; he thought human’s social property prior to the biological property, but never abandoned its biological foundation. Fei’s main idea is functionalism and his research method is field investigation. Holism, organism, social change and social entity theory are the four main elements of Fei’s ethnic theory, they became a self-consistent system in his thought. Fei participated the "Chinese nation is one" debate in 1930s, he emphasized the pluralistic origin of the Minzus in China and held an objection to Gu Jiegang’s Han chauvinism at that time. Then he became a supporter of the regime of the Chinese Communist Party and devoted himself to PRC’s Minzu policies. He advocated the principles of equality and freedom of all the Minzus and the systems of regional ethnic autonomy. He encouraged diffirent Minzus to develop thier own identity and culture. He advocated a large-scale historical and social investigations to each Minzu in order to grasp the overall actual conditions and promote their economic developments. However, Fei took a critical view of PRC’s Ethnic Classification work and never gave a clearly defined standards about it. Although he supported the CCP’s regime, he was never converted to a Marxist. In the late 1980s, he finally returned to his functionalism in public. Through a very long-term practice and thinking, Fei proposed "the Pluralistic Unity of the Chinese Minzu" to deal with the problem of the relations among the diffirent Minzus within China and the hidden dangers in PRC’s Minzu policies. Holism, organism, social change and social entity theory were all reflected on Fei’s Chinses Minzu theory, and its connotations or essentials was that the Chinese Minzu is a holistic, organic and changed Minzu entity. The “pluralism” refers to the pluralistic origin, culture and identities of all the Minzus entities. They gragually became the “unity” through a long time historical development with the Han Minzu as a coherent core and a cultural contact and integration and a tight economical connection. Combined with the impact of external factors in modern times, it finally became a unity which has a higher recognition and a self consciousness. Based on these discuss, this research points out its achievements and limitations.

並列關鍵字

Fei Xiaotong ； the Chiese Minzu ； the Pluralistic Unity ； Minzu research ； holism

參考文獻

一、原著

Google Scholar

Comte, Auguste System of Positive Polity: Theory of the Future of Man, with an Appendix Consisting of Early Essays on social Philosophy, New York: William Gowans, 1868, First published 1851.