Instead of employing the"nation-state" theory, this paper applies the concept of "nationals"of a sovereign state to a critical commentary on the views Liang Qichao, Gu Jiegang and Fei Xiaotong expounded on the"Chinese nation".The author argues that although they defined the"Chinese nation"differently, the three scholars had basically the same research object.Liang Qichao named the cohering result of ethnic groups on Chinese land by Qing Dynasty and the People's Republic of China the "Chinese nation".On the basis of accepting the notion of the "Chinese nation", Gu Jiegang and Fei Xiaotong analyzed its attributes and internal structure.Gu identified the "intangible" attributes of the Chinese nation, and Fei further elaborated on Gu's "snowballing" theory.Their views are reasonably convincing in their own right, but they still leave room for perfection, which will take long-term joint efforts of the academia.Discussions on the topic show that"nation" is only the appearance of the problem.What the problem really involves is how to couple the two different discourse systems between the East and the West.The key factor that has sparked off the debate is whether the nation-state theory can explain the history of the ethnic group cohesion on the Chinese land and the influences it has produced on China.The author proposes that the academia should throw off the shackles of the "nation-state" theory and reconstruct, from the perspective of China's transition from a traditional dynasty state to a modern sovereign state, a discourse system which can meet the need of delineating the trajectory of the regime changes and ethnic group cohesion and integration on the Chinese land.The author thinks that building such a discourse system is not only an urgent need of the reality but also an important mission the academia should undertake.%通过摆脱"民族国家"理论,可以在主权国家"国民"的视阈下,对梁启超、顾颉刚、费孝通关于"中华民族"的阐述进行评析.三位学者对"中华民族"的界定虽然有异,但三位的研究对象是基本相同的.梁启超将中华大地上族群凝聚到清代和民国的结果命名为"中华民族",顾颉刚和费孝通在认同"中华民族"的基础上,对其属性和内部结构进行分析,但无论是顾颉刚所言"无形中",还是费孝通对顾颉刚"像滚雪球一般地越滚越大"观点的进一步阐述,都各自既有合理性,也有待完善之处,研究依然任重道远,需要学界的共同努力.从引发的讨论看,"民族"只是表象,实则涉及东西方两套不同的话语体系的对接问题,而"民族国家"理论体系能否解释中华大地上族群凝聚的历史及带给中国的影响,则是引发争论的关键.讨论进而提出:摆脱"民族国家"理论的束缚,从传统王朝国家向近现代主权国家转变的视阈,重新构建适合阐述中华大地政权更迭和人群凝聚交融轨迹的话语体系,不仅是迫切的现实需要,也是学界应该担负起的重要使命.
展开▼
