重探傳統政制以應世變－一九四○年代中國對政府－社會關係的另一種回答

本文討論1940年代前後三位學者的傳統中國政治制度研究：張純明以西方政治學分析「無為政治」，嘗試重組政府組織，但這一取徑遭遇侷限；錢穆從史學發掘「學治」回應現實，卻又感到學術獨立與近代政府擴展之緊張；費孝通調查農村經濟，注意到地方「雙軌政治」之破壞，最終走向知識社會學探索。此課題沉寂多年，為何當思想主流更趨向激進變革，不同學科卻出現相近關注？本文指出三項研究反映出共同時代問題：當政治目標轉向有為，如何確保「政府－社會」連結，而非盲目以新制度破壞社會？他們從各自學科脈絡，反思晚清以來視傳統政治為專制之說，分別察覺「政府－社會」之間行政組織薄弱，重新探討傳統政府－社會間士人階層連結，指出現代國家建設未成卻已破壞地方團體，進而思考近代中國知識分子與社會之脫節，期望重建連結，確保「政府－社會－知識」之聯繫，以達改革成效。儘管這些思考未及充分對話，也未引起太多迴響，但作為潛流，他們顯示五四以降學術的新發展：一種在新派、左派、傳統派之外的定位，並非移植西方制度，而是以西方知識資源，從歷史角度重新認識傳統制度與社會，以推動變革；就此，面對國家建設、戰爭破壞下社會秩序之崩解，提出不同於徹底重造理想社會的另一種回答。

關鍵字

中國傳統政治制度； 1940年代人文社會科學；張純明；錢穆；費孝通

並列摘要

The present article examines three studies conducted in China in the 1940s concerning the relationship between the government and society. In one such study, Zhang Chunming applied Western politics to analyze the traditional institutions formed under the concept of 'governing by non-interference,' to rectify government organizations systematically. But, his work also revealed the limitations of this approach. In another study, Qian Mu extracted the notion of 'the politics of scholar-officials' from his study of the history of China in search of a response to the crises of his age, but he came to feel the irresolvable tension between this notion and modern state-building. The scholar Fei Xiaotong became aware of the destruction of the 'dual-way politics' in local society based on his rural economic survey. He finally proposed a solution based on the sociology of knowledge. At the time, the mainstream thought was radical reform. Why were these scholars expressing similar concerns in their analyses of Chinese traditional political institutions in different disciplines, a subject which had been neglected for years? These three studies revealed a common question of their time: how to ensure that the relationship between government and society may avoid the utter destruction threatened by the sudden imposition of entirely new institutions on society, even if the government's goal is ＂constructive＂? They reassessed the idea of defining traditional politics as 'despotism,' as had been done since the late Qing. In their own disciplines, they each noticed the fragility of local administration, rediscovered the position of traditional scholar-officials between government and society, and discovered after analysis and reflection that before the implementation of the modern state-building, the local social institutions had to be eliminated. Consequently, they perceived the disconnect between traditional society and the modern Chinese intellectuals, knowledge, government. They hoped to find way to establish these connections in order to ensure a humane and effective reform plan. Although these studies did not present an intellectual discussion with each other and had few echoes, they revealed a new development of humanities and social sciences after the May Fourth period: they staked out a new position beyond the liberals / modernists, leftists and conservatives, refused to simplify institutional transplants, and proposed reforms based on the historical comprehension of the tradition institutions with the help of modern Western knowledge. In these ways, they expressed an alternative response to the project of 'building an ideal new society,' one response that would not require the deconstruction of the old social order.