本帖最后由 aha 于 2009-5-12 19:30 编辑
【原文标题】The Confucian Party
【中文标题】儒家党
【登载媒体】NYT
【来源地址】http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12iht-edbell.html
【译者】aha
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用,未经AC或译者许可,不得转载。
【原文库链接】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-164221-1-1.html
【译文】
(麻烦留言不要讨论敏感内容)
北京—20年前,中国历史上最大的亲民主运动在天安门广场被粉碎,从那时起,所有共产党外的高层次政治活动都被有效禁止。
然而我们不需要因此就对中国的政治进程感到悲观。仅将争论包裹在“民主”和“集权”的条目下,恐怕会遗露掉别的中国政治改革者青睐的选项。
最近我在曲阜(孔子出生地)附近参加了一个会议,主办会议的地方官员骄傲的说起他们的努力——在“中国文化”的旗帜下复兴儒家思想。
人们很容易忽视,拥有7400万党员的中国共产党是一个庞大、多元的组织。老一辈领导们仍然受到毛泽东主义的影响,对传统嗤之以鼻,对于任何努力推行有别于共产主义意识形态的行为,他们常常进行谴责(condemn 判刑, 处刑, 声讨, 谴责)。但是年轻一辈的四五十岁的领导们则倾向于支持这些努力,时间站在他们这一边。在那些政治争论中,有一部分是关于儒家的复兴。
自由主义者需要担忧吗?从一个重要意义上讲,并不需要。儒家学者——其中很多是党员——他们支持一种更加开放的思想空间,在那个空间里,人们可以争论也可以批评关于政治改革和教育改革的新的观点。
他们指出,中国历史上思想最繁盛的时期是战国时代(公元前476-221),那时,孟子这样的学者可以公开批评统治者的不道德行为,并能够进一步推行政治变革。去年有一份08宪章,要求共产党结束一党专政,组建一个多政党的执政系统。政府禁止了有关此宪章的争论,我的儒家朋友们对政府这种愚笨的做法表示不屑。
然而,他们同时又严厉的批评了这份宪章的内容,他们认为它响应了二十世纪中国自由派的努力,追求全盘西化来解决中国的问题。事实上,即便是自由派学者,如秦晖,中国非常有影响力的一位社会批评家,他公开的批评了宪章的主旨。即使政府不对这份宪章进行干涉,它或许已经自己寿终正寝了。
在儒家看来,任何持久的稳定的政治改革必须根植于中国自身的传统中。这是否表示他们是狭隘的民族主义者?完全相反。Jiang Qing,新儒家的代表人物,明确批评了国家主权的概念,他认为主权在“天”而不在国。他主张一种平民的(democratic 民主的, 民主主义的, 民主政体的, 平民的)体制,能够提供更多机会参与政治,然而他却批评民主政治(democracy民主政治, 民主主义),认为民主政治过分关注当下选民的利益。
Jiang 提出了另外一种政治体制,这种制度可以代表那些在民主国家中被忽视的非投票者的利益,这些非投票者包括:外国人,后代及祖先。他质疑道,对于将来全球暖化的受害者来说,民主会是保护他们的最佳方式吗?
儒家知识份子同时也为教育改革提出了新的观点。他们认为,共产主义作为支撑中国人民的统一神话已经死亡,那么,当今的中国需要什么作为替代?(stand for代表, 代替, 象征, 支持, 做...的候选人)这就是儒家价值的作用所在了。目前已经开展了成千上万的教育试验,旨在推广以和谐与爱(compassion 同情怜悯)为价值的儒家精神。
培养了许多中国精英的清华大学(我授课的学校)或许正在引领这条道路。最近,该校将“四书”列为人文学科本科生的必修书目。这些书于2000多年前写就,他们将会替代马克思列宁主义的一些必修课程。按照传统的方式,在进入关键的讲解之前,学生需要先将文章背诵下来。
如今,知识份子十分热衷此类复兴传统的努力。最近由杜克大学的Tianjian Shi开展的一项关于中国人政治态度的调查显示,在中国经济更加发达的同时,中国的政治却更趋向于传统。面对伴随快速现代化而来的物质主义潮流,许多知识分子转身向传统学习,比如强调社会责任的儒家思想。
那些期待另一次天安门那样的政治示威大爆发的人很可能要失望了。在曲阜的会议上,儒家批评者们小心的告诉政府官员,他们追求在稳定基础之上的改变。
如果儒家能够成功,那么政治变革将是缓慢平和的。自从邓小平打开改革之门,这三十年来,中国各级政府开展了各种各样的经济试验,中央政府从中选取成功的案例,在全国推广开来。这很可能也是未来三十年教育改革和政治改革要走的路子。此时此刻,改革的进程或许已经在像曲阜这样的城市中开启了。
Daniel A. Bell是《中国的新儒教:变革社会中的政治的日常生活》一书的作者。
By DANIEL A. BELL
Published: May 11, 2009
BEIJING — Twenty years ago, the biggest pro-democracy movement in China’s history was crushed in Tiananmen Square, and high-level political activism outside the confines of the Communist Party has been effectively shut down since then.
But it doesn’t follow that we should be pessimistic about China’s political evolution. Packaging the debate in terms of “democracy” versus “authoritarianism” may crowd out other possibilities that appeal to Chinese political reformers.
I recently attended a conference near Qufu, the birthplace of Confucius, hosted by local officials who spoke with pride about their efforts to revive Confucianism under the banner of “Chinese culture.”
It’s easy to forget that the 74-million-strong Chinese Communist Party is a large and diverse organization. Elderly cadres, still influenced by Maoist antipathy to tradition, often condemn any efforts to promote ideologies outside of a rigid Marxist framework. But the younger cadres in their 40s and 50s tend to support such efforts, and time is on their side. Part of the political debate is the effort to revive Confucianism.
Should liberals be worried? In one important sense, no. Confucian scholars — many of whom are party members — favor a more open ideological atmosphere where new ideas for political and educational reform can be debated and criticized.
They point out that China’s most fertile intellectual period was the Warring States era (476 to 221 B.C.) , when scholars like Mencius could openly criticize rulers for their immoral deeds and put forward political alternatives. My Confucian friends have criticized the government’s clumsy attempts to shut down debate about Charter 08, a manifesto published in 2008 which urged the Communist Party to abandon monopoly rule and establish a multiparty system of government.
But the same scholars were severely critical of the content of the charter, saying that it echoes 20th century efforts by Chinese liberals to seek complete Westernization as the solution to China’s problems. In fact, even liberal scholars like Qin Hui, China’s most influential social critic, openly criticized the charter’s substance. Had the government not interfered with the charter, it might have died a natural death.
For the Confucians, any long-lasting and stable political reform must be rooted in China’s own traditions. So should we view them as narrow nationalists? Quite the opposite. Jiang Qing, a leading exponent of the new Confucianism, explicitly criticizes the idea of state sovereignty, saying that sovereignty lies with “heaven” rather than the state. He argues for a democratic institution that would offer more opportunities for political participation, while criticizing democracy for being too narrowly focused on the interests of the current generation of voters.
Jiang proposes another political institution designed to represent non-voters whose interests are typically neglected in democratic states, such as foreigners, future generations and ancestors. Is democracy really the best way to protect future victims of global warming, he asks?
Confucian intellectuals have also put forward ideas for educational reform. Communism is dead as a unifying myth that can sustain the Chinese people, they argue, so what does China stand for now? Here’s where Confucian values become relevant. There are currently thousands of educational experiments to promote such Confucian values as harmony and compassion.
Tsinghua University, the university that trains much of China’s elite (and where I teach), may be leading the way. It has recently made the “four Confucian classics” compulsory reading for a group of undergraduate students in the humanities. Written over 2,000 years ago, the books will effectively replace some of the compulsory courses in Marxist-Leninism. In the traditional mode, students will memorize the texts before engaging in critical interpretation.
Today, such efforts to revive tradition really grab intellectuals . According to a recent survey of Chinese political attitudes by Duke University’s Tianjian Shi, China has become more traditional in its political orientation as it has developed economically. Reacting to the materialism that has accompanied rapid modernization, many intellectuals are turning to traditions like Confucianism that emphasize social responsibility.
Those looking for another explosion of political demonstrations like Tiananmen are likely to be disappointed. At the conference in Qufu, the Confucian critics were careful to tell government officials that they favor change on a stable basis.
If the Confucians get their way, political change will come slowly and peacefully. Since Deng Xiaoping opened the doors to economic reform over 30 years ago, various economic experiments have been carried out at different levels of government, with the central government taking what works and implementing the reforms in the whole country. That’s also likely to be the model for educational and political reform over the next 30 years. It may be starting right now in towns like Qufu.
Daniel A. Bell is the author of ‘‘China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society.’’
|