论文部分内容阅读
从上世纪90年代以来,关于中国社会形态问题的研究引起了学界的极大关注。特别是冯天瑜《“封建”考论》一书出版以来,赞成废弃中国中古时代为“封建社会”的人日益增多,并相继提出各种提法来取代“封建社会”这一概念。2010年5月,《文史哲》编辑部举办的“秦至清末:中国社会形态问题”专题学术研讨会,更是推动了这一进程。到目前为止,学界关于中古中国社会形态或社会性质,已经提出了诸如“封建帝制时代”、“帝国时代”、“帝制时代”、“专制个体型家国同构农耕社会”、“皇权社会”、“帝制农民社会”、“郡县制时代”、“选举社会”、“专制社会”等等各种提法,而每一种提法都没有赢得多数人的认可,相关研究呈现出理论解放之初百家争鸣、莫衷一是的局面。在不同提法背后所潜藏着的是不同的判断标准、不同的方法论思想,如果就此问题展开探讨,则可能有助于这一问题的解决。因此,本刊邀请相关学者撰文,就中国中古社会性质研究的方法论问题进行探讨,并希望有更多学人参与进来。
Since the 90s of the last century, the research on the social form of China has drawn great attention from academic circles. In particular, since the publication of Feng Tianyu’s Feudalism and Textual Criticism, the number of people who favored the abandonment of the “Middle Ages” of China’s ancient society as a “feudal society” has been steadily increasing, and various references have been proposed to replace “feudal society” A concept. In May 2010, the “Symposium on the Issue of Qin from the Qing Dynasty to the End of the Qing Dynasty: Problems of Chinese Social Formation” organized by the editorial department of “Literature, History and Philosophy” promoted this process. So far, the academic circles have put forward some suggestions on the social forms and social characteristics of Middle China, such as the “Age of Feudal Monarchy”, “Age of Empires”, “Age of Imperialism”, “ Society ”,“ imperial society ”,“ imperial peasant society ”,“ county era ”,“ election society ”,“ authoritarian society ”and so on, One of the references failed to win the approval of the majority, and the relevant studies showed a situation of contending and incomprehensible at the beginning of the theoretical liberation. Different standards are hidden behind different standards of judgment. Different methods of thinking may help to solve this problem if they are explored. Therefore, we invite relevant scholars to write an essay to discuss the methodology of the study on the social nature of the Middle Ages in China and hope that more scholars will participate in it.