欢迎您访问52ij英汉互译网，今天小编为你分享的英语知识是：【【博雅双语名家名作】费孝通：中国士绅（二）】，下面是详细的分享！
【博雅双语名家名作】费孝通：中国士绅（二）
中国士绅——城乡关系论集China’s Gentry—Essays in Rural-Urban Relations
作者简介：费孝通，著名社会学家、人类学家、民族学家、社会活动家，中国社会学和人类学的奠基人之一。
内容简介：费孝通英文口述基础上编撰的对中国农村和中国社会的总体描述。其中，传统社会中文人和士绅的作用，和乡村和城市之间的关系，对认识中国传统社会的“超稳定结构”具有重要意义，更是理解中国近代社会剧变的关键。
To the Westerner the book sheds light on the recent political behavior of China and suggests that the failure of the West to prevent the party and power of Mao Tse-tung from taking control arose out of a worsening situation among the Chinese people which the party of Chiang Kai-shek did not remedy and which many Americans did not understand. Furthermore, it offers a different construction from that which is often put forward as to the benefit so far received by China from the importation of Western technology and capital. 本书给西方读者阐明了中国近期的政治行为，并指出，西方企图阻止共产党和毛泽东政权上台的失败，是由于蒋介石的国民党没能挽救中国人民于每况愈下的处境，而对于许多美国人来说也未能理解这一危急形势。同时，对于通常认为中国受益于引进西方技术和资本的观点，本书也作出了相反的回答。
First is borne in upon the reader the unwisdom, in the light of this analysis, of assuming that to the Chinese the central government has traditionally the meaning to Chinese which government has had to Americans and western Europeans. We have dealt with Chinese governments as though the Chinese thought they represented the Chinese people. It might have been nearer the truth if we had begun by assuming that centralized government is, traditionally, a potentially dangerous predator upon the people—“the tiger.” With the revolution of Sun Yat-sen appeared governments that promised to act on behalf of the people, limiting their own power constitutionally. However, the credit of this promise, to Chinese, passed in the last decade from the Kuomintang to the Communist party. And the “people’s assemblies,” the innumerable committees and discussions, stimulated and guided by the Communists, gave Chinese, when the Communists took over, a sense of direct participation in government which they never experienced, and rarely thought was theirs to claim, during the long imperial period.依照这一分析，读者首先认识到，如果假设对于中国人来说，传统上中央政府对中国人的意义与政府对美国人和西欧人的意义一样，这是很不智的。我们在与中国政府打交道时，总是假定中国人认为这些政府是代表中国人民的。如果我们一开始就假定，即从传统的意义上说，中央政府对人民而言，通常是潜在的危险的捕食者，是“老虎” ，这也许会更接近于真实。随着孙中山的革命运动，出现了代表民众、用宪法限制自身权力的政府。不过，在中国人看来，代表民众的美名在过去的十年中由国民党转移到了共产党身上。由共产党所发动和领导的人民代表大会、不计其数的委员会和讨论，使中国人感受到，自己在共产党掌权后直接参与了政府，这是他们在漫长的帝国时代里从未经历也几乎没敢要求过的。
Second, we understand from what is brought forth in these pages how little prepared have been the Chinese people to assume leadership and carry on constructive and efficient national government. When many of us joined General Marshall in bidding the educated liberals of China to take the lead in constituting a government neither Communist nor corrupt, we did not understand the tradition of which those liberals 13are the heir. Since the time of Confucius at least, the educated man in China has been concerned with ethical advice (or “normative knowledge,” as Fei calls it), not with political action. Indeed, as Fei makes quite plain, especially in the first and fourth essays, sound political policy in China has been to neutralize the political power of the emperor, not to control it. Do-nothingism, he says, has been the equivalent of a constitutional check on government. So the scholar, while being an administrator, had nothing to do with shaping national policy; and administrative effectiveness consisted not in technical efficiency, as in the West, but in skill in such personal negotiations as kept local affairs running not too much disturbed by demands of centralized power. An educated elite with this tradition, without any political power or experience in the formation of policy, separated from the peasantry by mode of life and class position, could hardly be expected to rescue China from the torments of civil war. For the Chinese who has a modern Western education is only the heir of the scholar-official of the long imperial period.其次，从这些文章中我们了解到，中国人对于掌握政权、施行建设性和有效的国家统治是何等地准备不足！我们许多人加入马歇尔将军的队伍，呼吁中国受过教育的自由派领导中国，建立起一个既非共产主义的、也非腐化堕落的政府。但是我们并不了解，这些自由派实质是这些传统东西的继承人。至少是从孔子时代开始，中国受过教育的人已经和伦理教条（或者如费先生所称谓的“规范知识” ）而非政治行为联系在一起。实际上，正如费先生特别在第一篇与第四篇文章中明确阐述的那样，在中国，良好的政治策略是使皇帝的政治权力自然化，而不是要去控制它。他说， “无为”成为政府体制约束的同义词。因此，作为官员的文人，在制定国家政策上无所事事；行政的效率并非像西方那样体现在技术的效率上，而是体现在为保持地方不过多地受到中央政权的干扰而进行的个人游说的技能上。一个具有这种传统的受过教育的精英，没有任何政治权力或制定政策的经验，从生活方式和阶级地位上脱离了农民身份，我们很难想象这样的人能把中国从内战的混乱中解救出来，因为受过现代西方教育的中国人也只不过是中国漫长的帝国时代的文官的传续。
The ancient system was not based on economic justice, but it worked. It worked to the degree that, except for natural catastrophes and wars, it gave the peasant a certain amount of security. His village handicrafts provided an income supplementary to that provided by his agriculture and used the labor that was not needed in slack seasons of the farmer’s year. He had to support the gentry, but the scholar-official of the class he supported was useful to him in negotiating with the representatives of the imperial power to prevent the infliction of extreme hardship; and, if the peasant was both industrious and fortunate, he might live to see his son or grandson become a scholar and an official and so experience elevation in his own status. The teachings of the ancient sages reached the peasants through these scholars and redefined again and again the sense of moral purpose which peasant and gentry had in common. The Confucian non-acquisitive ideal both harmonized the peasant’s ethics with his lot in life and acted as a restraint upon an imperial power otherwise without check. 古代的体系并非基于经济的公平，但却可行，可行到如果没有自然灾害和战争，农民就可以有一定程度安全感的地步。在农闲季节，多余的劳动力从事手工业可以带来额外收入。他们必须供养士绅，但是在与帝国权力的代表人物交涉以避免厄运时，他们所供养的这一阶层中的文官对他们又是有用的。并且，如果一个农民既勤劳又幸运，他也许能在有生之年看到自己的儿子或孙子成为文人和官吏，那么，他自己的地位也会因此而提高。古代圣人的教导便是通过这些文人来传递给农民的，并且一次又一次重新界定农民和士绅都共同认可的道德目的的意义。孔子“无欲”的理想既调和了农民对于命运的伦理思想，又限制了皇权，否则皇权将毫无节制。
If we call this regime, from a view of its politics, democratic or authoritarian, we are likely in either case to misrepresent the facts. The participation of a good many villagers in decisions as to local matters was hardly an equal participation, and the influence of the gentry on the local life was, through their economic power alone, very great. The authoritarianism of the central government was in cases and at times truly autocratic, yet that regime was in theory based on moral authority rather than force; the teachings of the Confucians made the point again and again; the fact that an ideal other than absolutism existed influenced the facts, just as the ideal of social equality between all men influences the facts in the United States. 从政治的角度看，如果我们把这种统治叫做民主或独裁，那就可能歪曲了事实。在决定本村的事务时，众多村民的参加几乎并非平等的参与。士绅单单凭借他们在经济上的实力而对当地生活造成的影响就是相当巨大的。中央政府的威权主义有时存在，而且的确十分专制，但这种统治理论上是根基于道德权威而非武力，儒家学说曾多次指出过这一点。正是一种理想而非专制主义的存在这一事实影响到了这些现实，这与在美国人人平等的理想影响到了美国的那些现实是一样的。
Thus the opposition between gentry and peasantry in traditional China was held within bounds by the real economic interdependence of the two classes, by the degree of mobility between them, by the co-operation between the two in dealing with the imperial power, and by common ethical principles. What happened to this system that made in China a genuine social revolution? Fei’s book is no systematic study of this question—or of any other—but it does suggest some part of the answer. The changes that occurred in China through contact with the West disrupted this system, made it unworkable, and increased the real or apparent harshness of the inequality of life-changes between gentry and peasantry. Fei assumes but does not discuss the general effects in China of that great awakening of the ill-fed, overworked two-thirds of the human race, who live chiefly in Asia, which is such an immense event of our times: the new and growing discontent of the underdog everywhere. The special effects which he puts to the fore are the importation of goods (rather than of capital) and the new learning. Fei is plainly convinced that the benefits of Western capitalistic development in China did the common people harm rather than good. As the gentry developed tastes for Western goods, while some of them found new sources for wealth in trading with the West, they came to spend their profits realized in rent or interest on Western products. The peasant lost his market for his handicrafts and often found it difficult to move to market any agricultural produce that he might be lucky enough to have left over from his domestic wants. Whether Fei’s account can stand without some qualifications or not, the visitor to China in recent years cannot fail to catch some of the bitterness with which many Chinese look upon Shanghai and the other treaty ports, where live the privileged, Chinese or Western, “sucking out the wealth of the Chinese people for their own luxuries.” So the war between Nationalists and Communists is seen, against this background, not as a conquest of China by a foreign power or a foreign ideology but as a civil conflict between the traditionally privileged rentier class and the rural population.因此在传统的中国，士绅和农民的对立局限在一定的范围之内：他们经济上互相依赖；在某种程度上，他们之间可以流动；在同皇权打交道时互相合作；享有共同的伦理概念。那么，这一体制发生了什么而导致了中国一场真正的社会革命？费先生并没有在书中对这一问题或任何其他问题作系统研究，但却的确暗示了部分的答案。中国在与西方接触的过程中发生的变化破坏了这种体制，使其丧失效力，并使士绅和农民之间不平等的生活差异变得更为严重。费先生没有讨论占世界人口三分之二、主要居住在亚洲、食不果腹、过度劳累的人民的伟大觉醒所带来的影响，但对此作了假设。这一觉醒是当今时代的一件大事：无处不在的被压迫者对现实新生的不满与日俱增。费先生将物品（而不是资本）的进口和新学的出现这样的特殊影响看作是首当其冲的。费先生确信，西方资本主义在中国的发展对老百姓有害无利。随着士绅们逐渐培养起对洋货的品味，当他们中的某些人在与西方贸易的过程中发现新的发财之路时，他们便会开始用收取地租和利息得来的钱去购买洋货。农民的手工业品失去了市场，并且通常很难将除自用之外有幸剩下的农产品拿到集市上去出售。无论费先生的描述是否能站得住脚，近几年到过中国的人都不难感受到某些凄凉之处，许多中国人正是带着这种凄凉来看待上海以及其他通商口岸的：在那里居住着享有特权的中国人或洋人，他们“为享受荣华富贵而榨取中国人民的财富” 。因此，在这种背景下，国民党和共产党的斗争就不是被看作中国被国外的势力或意识形态所征服，而是来自传统的靠收取地租和利息生存的特权阶层和农民的内部冲突。
And more and more did the sympathies of the Chinese with modern education turn to the rural population and against the rentier class. They came to take hope that the reforms promised by Mao Tse-tung 17would remove some of the worst of the economic injustices of China. They saw a chance that they could use the special scientific knowledge many of them had acquired in solving the problem of how the city and country might be made mutually beneficial. They attacked the question of how industrialization of China might be wisely carried on, so that the common people might benefit. They began to see how great was their own personal and professional problem: to learn to act politically, to help make public policy in rural communities, and to work with a peasant from whom tradition had separated them.接受现代教育的中国人，越来越同情农民而反对收取地租的阶层。他们开始寄希望于毛泽东，希望他的改革能祛除某些严重经济不平等现象。他们看到了可以用自己掌握的专门的科学知识去解决城乡互惠互利问题的那种机会。他们着力解决如何巧妙地在中国实施工业化，从而使得普通民众可以受益这一问题。他们开始发现自己个人的和职业上所面对的问题是何等地重要，那就是要学会政治上的行为方式，要帮助制定乡村社区的公共政策，还要与在传统上跟他们分离开来的农民并肩工作。
Hsiao-tung Fei, himself a member of the gentry class, at the time these essays were written was probably the leading voice among those striving to solve the problem of China with the aid of science and toward the common welfare. Through his studies and periods of residence in the West he had come to assume a position, unfamiliar to the traditional intellectual of China, that “something must be done to help.” For this he and some few others in China like him were criticized by other intellectuals. Interested in American democracy and in English socialism, convinced that the people of China must assume responsibility for economic and social reform, he turned to the writing of the papers that now appear in this book partly because the suspicious Nationalist Chinese government would not allow him to carry on field research. The essays are in part an indirect criticism of the failures of the Nationalist government. Whether today Fei has the freedom he needs to speak and act in accordance with his convictions is not known to the writer of these lines. But those who know him are sure that he will continue as long as he is able to devote his energies, and to risk his life, to help the Chinese people. 费孝通本人出身于士绅阶层，他所写的这些文章可能是那些想着民众的福利、主张依靠科学解决中国问题的人们的先声。他在西方学习和逗留期间逐渐认识到： “该做点帮忙的事情了。 ”这一立场对传统中国知识分子来说有些生疏，他同国内另外几个人因此遭到其他知识分子的批判。由于他对美国的民主和英国的社会主义感兴趣，认定中国人要负起经济与社会改革的责任，所以才会写下本书中所收录的文章，这里有一部分原因就是考虑到持怀疑态度的国民党政府可能不允许他去进行实地的田野研究。这些文章实际上委婉地批判了国民党政府的失败。费先生今天是否有依其信念的言行自由，本文作者不得而知，但认识费先生的人都确信，他会尽其可能继续不畏艰险、鞠躬尽瘁地帮助中国人民。
The correctness of Fei’s interpretations of the origins of economic and political problems in China may be open to criticism. There are other minds and other books to do this. Another aspect of the book is also open to criticism: the use and interpretation of references to classical Chinese literature. Such references occur especially in the first two essays. To me the correctness of Fei’s philological and philosophical understandings is, in the general context of this work, less important than the fact that he used the Chinese classics at all. The old literati had ceased to perpetuate themselves; they are gone forever; Fei’s face was turned hopefully to the Communists, whose doctrines he knew to be anti-Confucian and Marxist. Yet Fei, talking to his own people, “the plain people,” elaborates and demonstrates his views with etymologies and quotations from the traditional poets and philosophers. Also he quotes Lilienthal, R. H. Tawney, and Sorokin! There is something in these pages that tells us about the forms of thought appropriate to the persuasion of literate Chinese at the turn of the revolutionary tide.费先生对中国经济和社会问题的解释的正确性可能会引起批评意见。这是其他人和其他书要做的事了。本书的另外一个方面也许同样会遭到批评，那就是对本书所参考的中国古典文献的运用和解释方面。这些文献尤其在前两篇文章中居多。在我看来，费先生在文献学和哲学方面理解的正确性，从本书的一般脉络上来看，并不及他运用了中国经典这一事实来得重要。古代的文人学士已离我们而去，无法再永垂不朽。费先生转而憧憬共产主义，他深知共产党人的主张与儒家思想相左，他们是坚持马克思主义的。然而他引用古代诗人和哲人的语句来向他的“纯朴的人民”阐明自己的观点。他竟然还引用到了李林塞尔、理查德• 亨利• 托尼和索罗金！本书的字里行间向我们讲述了在革命浪潮转折时期，合乎中国文人信念的思维方式。
Fei’s seven essays are followed in this volume by six life-histories of Chinese gentry collected by Mr. Yung-teh Chow in Yunnan between 1943 and 1946. Mr. Chow has translated these into English and kindly allowed their inclusion in this book. The accounts seem to us to exhibit, in terms of the life-careers of particular individuals, some of the principal generalizations Fei offers as to the role, partly beneficial, partly predatory, of the traditional Chinese gentry. Further comment on these life-histories appears on pages 145–148. 本书除了费先生的七篇短论外，接下来是六篇中国士绅的生活史，由周荣德先生于1943年至1946年间在云南搜集整理。周先生已将其译成英文并惠允我加进本书中来。从这些个人生活经历的角度来说，这些描述似乎向我们展示了费先生所概括的传统士绅阶层作用的一些主要性质，其作用大可说是利弊参半。在本书的145页至148页有对这些生活史的进一步评论。［该附录部分非费孝通所作，故未收入本书——编者注］
A Chinese sociologist in this country said to my wife and me: “When a Chinese sociologist writes for Chinese, he writes very differently from the way he writes for Americans.” The remark suggests something of the incompleteness with which Western social science and traditional Chinese forms of thought have become fused. It helps to explain, also, why my wife left in the text the many references to Chinese classics which Fei put there and introduced in the footnotes some explanations of some of these references. These references are entirely superfluous to the Sinologist; they are inserted to help readers who are not Sinologists to recognize the sources of some of Fei’s allusions. 一位中国社会学家对我和夫人说： “当一位中国社会学家为中国人写作时，他的写作风格与为美国人写作时截然不同。 ”这一见解暗示了西方的社会科学和中国人的传统思维方式相融合时某种程度的不完全。这也有助于解释为什么我夫人在正文中保留了费先生引用的众多中国古典文献，并在脚注中对其中一部分加以解释说明。这些引用对汉学家来讲完全多余，它们是为了帮助非汉学家的读者去认识费先生某些引述典故的出处。
In the cases of Chinese who have written in English and have recorded their names with the surname in last position, we have followed this practice; in other cases we have written the names as the Chinese do: with the surname first. 对于那些曾用英文写作并以英文形式（姓氏在后）注名的中国人的姓名，我们姑且沿用这种形式。其余的名字我们仍按中国人的习惯，即姓氏在前。
My wife and I are indebted to Mr. William L. Holland and the Institute of Pacific Relations (which had previously given aid to Fei for his researches on the Chinese gentry) for guidance and encouragement in the course of the preparation of the manuscript; to Professor John K. Fairbank, Dr. Marion J. Levy, Jr., Dr. Derk Bodde, W. Lloyd Warner, and Dr. Sol Tax for their kindness in reading the work and making helpful suggestions; and to Dr. Shu-ching Lee for advice on points of Chinese language or history and in connection with the editing of the 21life-histories. None of the above, however, has any responsibility for the content or form of the book. 在准备本书原稿的过程中，威廉•霍兰德先生和太平洋国际学会（该学会曾为费先生研究中国士绅阶层问题提供帮助）给予了我们指导和鼓励，我和夫人在此深表感激。费正清教授、小马利恩• 利维博士、德克•卜德博士、劳埃德•沃纳和索尔•塔克斯博士都阅读了本书，并提出了宝贵建议；李树清博士在汉语语言和中国历史以及生活史编辑工作方面多有建议——我们在此都一并表示感谢。以上诸位对本书的内容和形式不负任何责任。
编辑推荐：
费孝通英文原作《中国士绅》首次国内出版
理解士绅阶层于中国传统社会的功能
解读中国社会的“超稳定结构”编辑推荐：
《江村经济》（英汉对照版）
费孝通（著）赵旭东、秦志杰（译）
外语教学与研究出版社
- 评论列表（网友评论仅供网友表达个人看法，并不表明本站同意其观点或证实其描述）
-