2022: Zhao Shukai Calls for Politics-Free Historical Research

Posted on 09/29/2023 by 高大伟 David Cowhig

Rural China where most of China’s people still live and  rural governance across the long histories of the many states that have occupied the Central Plains since very early ‘barbarian peoples’ coalesced into. assimilated others into and inherited what is still known only dimly of early civilizations that existed in what is now southwestern China. The civilized ‘us’ vs the ‘barbarians’ outside and the cultured people of the cities and rural wannabes and the unlettered (uncharactered?) peasants who hope for their children’s advancement. See the blog article here 2010: ‘China’ Vs. the Barbarians Over the Years 

Sparks Ian Johnson’s book on the travails of Chinese historians was just published (September 2023) I just bought my copy!

What ‘China’ – the central country rather than the middle country translation of zhongguo 中國 is better methinks – what ‘China’ means gets reinvented with each dynasty as new dynasties arrive as usurpers but within a generation or two see themselves as the establishment and rightful heirs of a long history and tradition.  I saw a quote from a Chinese historian somewhere recently – “Chinese history ends in 1840” because while historians of earlier periods can study their period relatively freely, studies of periods after 1840 need to conform to the official narrative of the ‘century of humiliation’ and Party interpretations of history, not as heavy-handed as during Mao’s time but most definitely still there. It is not impossible to think and write differently – they (and sometimes family and colleagues)  just pay the price and have difficulty publishing, getting a job etc.  Dissident historians can be branded as ‘historical nihilists’ who offend all right-thinking Chinese.  Peasant rebellions can be a touchy subject too since they are seen as prefiguring China’s own rural-based revolution led by the Chinese Communist Party in the mid twentieth century. 

Looking back at 800-odd posts over fifteen-some years on this blog I see many different lenses on rural China translated from books and articles by Chinese writers.  These links include:

My favorite China blog is Dim Sims with its many enlightening posts on rural China from an agricultural and economic perspective.  For example: Teetering Population Pyramid in Rural China

I have added bolding and links to relevant online material in places.  Where Google Translate could shed some light for sino-illiterates, I linked to a machine translation of the original text referred to in this article – keep in mind the limits of machine translation, checking the original text is essential even when assisted by a noble cybernetic ally. 

Zhao Shukai: A Comparison of Rural Governance in Ancient and Modern Times

— Speech at the 2022 Annual Conference of the Chinese Society for the History of Peasant Rebellions

赵树凯：乡村治理的古今之辨

——在中国农民战争史研究会2022年会上的发言

This article has been read 2100 times. Last updated: September 28, 2023, 08:48 AM

Link to other articles on topic:  Rural Governance

Link to other articles by author Zhao Shukai  赵树凯

CV of author Zhao Shukai, researcher at the Development Research Center of the State Council and director of the Center for Government Decision Making at Shandong University, was born in 1959 in Laixi, Shandong Province. B.A. (Shandong University), LL.M. (Central Party School), Ph.D. in Political Science (Renmin University of China). joined the Rural Policy Research Office of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee in August 1982 as office secretary and assistant researcher, and joined the Development Research Center of the State Council in August 1990 as director of the Organizational Research Room of the Ministry of Rural Affairs, editor of the Editorial Group of “Selected Literature of Wanli” of the Documentation Editorial Committee of the CPC Central Committee, deputy secretary of Zhuolu County Committee, deputy secretary-general of China Development Research Foundation, and information center of Development Research Center of the State Council. In August 1990, he joined the Development Research Center of the State Council as Director of the Organization Research Office of the Ministry of Rural Affairs, Editor of the Editorial Group of the Selected Works of Wan Li of the Documentation Editorial Committee of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Deputy Secretary of Zhuo Lu County Party Committee of Hebei Province, Deputy Secretary General of the China Development Research Foundation, and Director of the Information Center of the Development Research Center of the State Council. 

Zhao Shukai has served as a consultant to the World Bank and the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom, as well as to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on rural development projects in China. He was a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Chinese Studies, Australian National University (1996-1997); a Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Duke University (2000-2001); a Collaborative Research Fellow at the Fei Cheng-Ching Center for East Asian Studies, Harvard University (2001-2002); and an Advanced Training Course in Public Administration at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (2003, 2002). “(2003, 2008); Visiting Professor, University of Tübingen, Germany (2012); Co-Fellow, Yenching Institute, Harvard University (2010-2011, 2016-2017). 

His major publications include: “Township Governance and Government Institutionalization” (selected by the State Council Information Office and the State Press and Publication Administration of the State Council as one of the recommended titles in the “Chinese Book Promotion Program to Foreign Countries” in 2011, and selected by the Commercial Press as one of the “Chinese Contemporary Academic Works Series” in 2017), “Peasant Politics”, and “The Political Science of Peasants”. (M.E. Sharp. 2006); Township Governance and Institutionalization in China. (World Scientific, 2013). China.(World Scientific,2013);Regeneration of Peasants (Springer,2017);The New Fate of Peasants (Springer,2017);The Politics of Peasants ( Springer,2017), among others.

Zhao Shukai: A Comparison of Rural Governance in Ancient and Modern Times

The annual conference of the Chinese Peasant Rebellion History Research Association [中國農民戰爭史研究會】, which focused on ancient rural governance as its theme, was very creative. I specialize in contemporary rural issues and am hesitant to speak on ancient topics without careful consideration. Therefore, I can only raise a few “questions” based on the present, which have no answers but rather perplexities. I hope to receive corrections and guidance.

  • I. How do we define ancient and modern “rural governance”?

In general, both ancient and modern rural governance can be understood as forms of management, rule, or governing in rural areas. However, if we interpret “rural governance” from the perspective of modern “governance” theory, it becomes more nuanced. In the past two decades, the rise of “governance” research has a specific background.

Starting in the 1980s and 1990s, the World Bank began to emphasize the importance of “governance” based on the lessons learned from poverty reduction efforts in countries like those in Africa. They argued that achieving development requires good governance, which they redefined, distinguishing it from conventional management and rule. Management and rule emphasize top-down control and centralized power, while “governance” emphasizes decentralized power structures and collaborative governance. Within this new power structure, modern governance also emphasizes transparency, responsiveness, accountability, and participation in the governance process. At the turn of the 21st century, this understanding of “governance” theory emerged. Based on this interpretation, it is evident that “governance” differs from traditional management. Therefore, in this context, modern rural governance should be distinguished from ancient social governance.

In the policy language system, the concept of “rural governance” did not exist before this century. In a policy sense, “rural governance” is a “policy concept” that emerged in the new century, first appearing in the Central Document No. 1 of 2006, which outlined the requirements for the construction of the new countryside. The document included aspects such as grassroots organization construction, village self-governance, and the development of social service systems. Prior to this, scholars studying rural issues introduced the concept of “rural governance” in response to social unrest and conflicts caused by the burden of taxes and fees on peasants at the turn of the century. “Rural governance” became an important topic of discussion. In earlier times, “governance” was commonly used in the context of rural work, often referred to as “comprehensive social order governance” by grassroots governments.

As for whether there is a concept of “rural governance” in ancient Chinese classics, I am not well-informed and do not know. In my limited reading, during the Yongle period of the Ming Dynasty, there was a compilation called “Memorials of Eminent Ministers from Various Dynasties” by Huang Huai and Yang Shiqi [黄淮、杨士奇等编《历代名臣奏议》],    which collected memorials from the Shang and Zhou dynasties to the Song and Yuan dynasties. The book is divided into 66 categories, with the fourth category being “Governance,” which can be considered a form of governance. This compilation mainly deals with the relationship between emperors and ministers, how the emperor should govern his subjects, or in other words, it focuses on “elite governance” and does not delve into grassroots society.

My overall feeling is that whether in the study of ancient rural society or modern rural society, it is necessary to first have a clear conceptual definition of how “governance” is being used, otherwise, meaningful dialogue is difficult.

  • II.  Is “rural governance” a research perspective or a research field?

Generally speaking, “governance” can be both a research perspective and a research field. However, in my opinion, “governance” is primarily a research perspective. This means that one approaches the study of ancient rural issues from the perspective of “governance” and then clarifies the issues within that framework. For example, research on the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom or the Boxer Rebellion has specific research objects, concrete historical events, and phenomena. But when studying “governance,” it is often challenging to clearly define the events and phenomena involved. In the case of research on the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom or the Boxer Rebellion, within this field, one can examine governance issues, such as how the turmoil was a result of rural governance and how it affected subsequent governance. Other historical phenomena can be approached in the same way. For example, during the Song Dynasty, Wang Anshi‘s reform, what governance issues did the Qingmiao law 青苗法, green-sprouts law raise? Or during the Ming Dynasty, Zhang Juzheng‘s reforms, what governance issues did the The Single Whip Law or the “Single Whip Reform” (simplified Chinese: 一条鞭法; traditional Chinese: 一條鞭法; pinyin: Yi Tiao Bian Fa) law raise? These can all become specific topics of research within the field of rural governance. In my view, it is possible to raise “rural governance” as a research question, but if one treats “rural governance” as a research object, it becomes a complex situation with unclear boundaries.

In Western academia, there is a saying, “Everything is Governance,” and there are various definitions of the field of governance research. Around the year 2000, there were discussions in American academic circles. I personally tend to agree with a particular definition that divides governance into three main areas: 

  1. Mobilizing political support, 
  2. Managing social conflict, and 
  3. Providing public services. 

These three aspects can be analyzed as research fields within governance. However, these three areas represent different issues for different governing entities. The concepts commonly used today, such as rural governance, grassroots governance, and local governance, all face challenges in defining their concepts. The current dilemma is that researchers often have their own assumptions, and what appears to be a lively discussion is actually a situation where everyone is speaking their own language, making it difficult to communicate.

The three major ancient Chinese agricultural texts, Jia Sixie’s “Qimin Yaoshu,” Wang Zhen’s “Nong Shu” from the Yuan Dynasty, and Xu Guangqi’s “Nong Zheng Quan Shu” from the Ming Dynasty, all touch upon rural governance to some extent. These texts primarily focus on production and technology but also seem to address governance in their introductory sections. The Complete Book of Agricultural Affairs “Nong Zheng Quan Shu,” 農政全書 which consists of 60 volumes, dedicates 18 volumes to “Huang Zheng” (management during times of famine and disaster), which accounts for one-quarter of the entire work. 

The book includes  Complete Book of Agricultural Affairs/Volume 43″General Discussion on Relief During Times of Famine “备荒总论” [Translator’s Note: Here linked via Google Translate, useful albeit imperfect. Chinese text found on  Wikisource  End note]   which summarizes the rules of relief during famines. It begins by stating, “Relief and aid for disasters should be provided early. If the people affected by the disaster are helped before they are hungry, the resources needed will be limited, and assistance will reach a wide area.” “If assistance is provided after they are already hungry, it will require more resources but have a smaller reach.” The book also discusses many management and technical issues. 

Volume 44 of the Complete Book of Agricultural Affairs  農政全書/卷44  specifically discusses how to establish “gruel distribution centers” during times of famine: “In famine years, all matters related to cooking gruel are handled by the authorities, and gruel distribution centers are established in scattered villages.” “Select open and spacious locations near the city’s four gates as gruel distribution centers. Arrange rows of ropes, with two vertical wooden pegs at each end and ropes as boundaries. When starving people arrive, instruct them to enter the center in an orderly fashion, sit in sequence, with men and women in separate rows. Those who are ill are placed in a separate row, and beggars are placed in another.” Here, it specifically discusses how to properly establish relief centers, known as gruel distribution centers, during times of famine, how to maintain order, and it involves a certain level of expertise. This can be considered one of the forms of grassroots governance as described in ancient agricultural texts.

Famine and disaster were pervasive in ancient society, and crisis governance during such times was a fundamental issue in ancient rural governance. However, the nature of crisis governance varied in different eras. For example, Shen Kuo’s “Dream Pool Essays” 宋代沈括《梦溪笔谈》during the Song Dynasty primarily focuses on technology but also covers governance to a significant extent. In the 11th volume, under the topic of “official governance,” it discusses how Fan Wenzheng organized relief efforts in Zhejiang during times of famine. These efforts included the construction of civil engineering projects, including building temples, to increase the income of famine-stricken people and alleviate their hardships. The 12th volume discusses the inconsistency in officials’ salaries, which falls under the purview of grassroots governance issues. We can draw inspiration from these readings and see that adopting a “governance” research perspective can lead to the discovery of new problems in research.

  • III.  Does rural governance research require an academic framework?

An academic framework is the core element that organizes a research field, including the main objects of observation, primary social phenomena, basic concept usage, important analytical methods, and so on. The development of any specialized academic field relies on these conditions. Without these basic normative elements, research appears very scattershot. Of course, a certain degree of disorder is inevitable during the research process for any issue, but if the disorder persists, progress in research gets difficult. Establishing a research direction fundamentally depends on how the “questions” are posed. Presently, research on grassroots governance seems lively and bustling, but it largely involves confusion because the basic academic framework cannot be established, especially the lack of a basic logical framework. The analysis path and framework are often dominated and regulated by political propaganda, putting academia in a difficult position. 分析路线和框架往往被政治宣传所主导和规制，学术陷入困境。

Academic frameworks gradually develop through research competition and should not rely on authoritative designations. No one should monopolize the interpretation or establishment of research frameworks. For research on rural governance, the establishment of an academic framework requires breaking away from the framework of practical policy or political interpretations and must be fundamentally rooted in the observation and analysis of real-life situations, based on academic accumulation, and respect for the laws of academic development.  对于农村治理研究而言，学术框架的建立需要走出现实的政策框架或政治解释框架，从根本上立足于现实生活的观察分析，立足于学术积累，尊重学术发展规律。

Perhaps the most important learning path is to draw from previous research. In my view, HSIAO, Kung-Chuan‘s “Chinese Countryside—On Imperial Control in the 19th Century ” [萧公权的《中国乡村——19世纪的帝国控制》]   is a classic example that has significant academic relevance for both modern and ancient rural governance research. It can be considered an early classic in the field of “rural governance” research. He did not use the concept of “rural governance” but rather “rural control system.” Of course, rural control is different from rural governance, but rural control is clearly a core component of rural governance. K.C. Hsiao (HSIAO, Kung-Chuan) analyzed the late imperial rural control system, including public security control (the baojia system), rural taxation (the lijia system), famine control (social granaries and other granaries), and ideological control (village compacts, academies, and study of righteous behavior etc.). Such an analytical framework provides important inspiration for our understanding of rural governance today.

Currently, research on national governance is flourishing, but in my view, national governance is a politicized concept rather than an academic one. Under the discourse of national governance, many studies on political issues are overshadowed and blurred. If the concept of national governance is applied to ancient research, the situation becomes even more complex.

  • IV.  Can research on ancient peasant wars be connected to modern history research?

Studying ancient rural governance inevitably involves paying attention to peasant wars. The 20th-century Chinese revolution was also a peasant war. Previous research has emphasized the differences in the nature of these wars, such as the presence or absence of proletarian leadership and the influence of Marxist ideology. As peasant wars, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, for instance, initially utilized Western ideas (founding the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom with a form of Christianity) as a theoretical and ideological resource. The Chinese Communist Party’s leadership in the revolution involved the application of Western Marxist-Leninist theory. Is there an inherent connection or some form of continuity between ancient peasant wars and modern ones?   Elizabeth J. Perry’s  early work,   Rebels and Revolutionaries in North China, 1845-1945   analyzes the underlying sources of the Nian Army, the Red Spear Society, and the armed forces of the Communist Party, offering important insights into understanding the Chinese revolution.

How did traditional peasant wars develop into modern Chinese revolutions? Researching this grand question requires expanding research paradigms or discursive systems. New research needs to broaden its perspectives, establish itself on a larger and more profound historical context and innovative theoretical basis, rather than being limited to certain existing explanations or established narrative approaches. If we delve into the research, we will find that some familiar classic explanations do not hold true. For example, the idea that the success of the Chinese revolution was due to the resolution of land issues, when in fact, early attempts to launch the revolution by redistributing land through radical means failed, and the so-called Communist “Great Revolution of 1924 – 1927” failed. 所谓“轰轰烈烈的大革命失败了” The growth and strength of the Communist Party occurred during the period of resistance against Japan, precisely when they abandoned radical land policies. 

When studying two revolutions in which peasants were the main actors, in different historical contexts, it is essential to emphasize the differences in their nature or characteristics. However, the question is, in non-essential aspects, what are the similarities or commonalities? How do these common aspects influence the essential nature of these wars, or in other words, to what extent can the explanations regarding nature and essence be valid? Another question is whether the people’s commune movement during the radical period can be compared with certain economic policies of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, and whether certain deep-seated historical factors can be found through comparative research. These are all worth considering. 

In the study of rural governance history, a fundamental question is: how to understand the political will of peasants, their policy demands, and the relationship between this will and demand and the existing institutions. Peasants participate in wars for land, but do they have the will to obtain land and then turn it over to the state for further collectivization? Are they willing to sell agricultural products like grain to the state at low prices and give up free market transactions? 

These questions can be explored in a concrete and in-depth manner. In this historical process, how do we understand the will of peasants in relation to the will of the state? This requires not only learning from existing research findings but also going beyond them. Otherwise, one might get lost in existing research. To clarify historical facts as much as possible, the most crucial reliance is on history. However, the analysis, insights, and explanations of historical facts should involve interdisciplinary efforts, and other social sciences also have a significant role to play.

From the historical difficulties faced by rural areas, another question that comes to mind is the relationship between politics and economics. It is often said that economics determines politics and culture, that politics is the concentrated expression of economics. However, under certain historical conditions, can politics and culture play a transcendent role in economics? The relationship between economics and politics, where economics influences politics and politics influences economics, is incredibly complex and cannot be reduced to a simple “law.” 通常可以说经济决定政治、文化，政治是经济的集中表现，但问题是，在若干历史条件下，政治、文化对于经济是否有某种超越作用？经济影响政治，政治影响经济，情况非常复杂，不可以轻言“规律”。

In pre-reform China, there was a large population suffering from prolonged food shortages, with some years even experiencing severe famines leading to mass abnormal deaths. These can be considered economic issues, but the root causes of these economic issues lay in politics, specifically in policy and institutional arrangements. 改革开放前的中国农村，有大量人口长期不得温饱，有的年份甚至出现大饥荒，导致巨量非正常死亡，这些都可以说是经济问题，但是，这些经济问题的根源却在政治上，更具体说是在政策和制度安排上。 Clearly, in the long-term development of rural areas during this period, politics determined the economy, rather than the economic conditions in rural areas determining the need for “class struggle” and intense political struggle within rural areas. To delve deeper, we can ask questions like: Was the People’s Commune system, which was implemented in Chinese rural areas for over two decades, a natural reflection of rural economic development, or was it a concentrated reflection of some form of utopian politics? Clearly, the emergence of the People’s Commune system was not a necessary requirement of rural economic conditions. Should the People’s Commune system be explained primarily from an economic perspective or a political perspective as a comprehensive social control system? These all require in-depth research.

  • V.  What is the modern significance of studying ancient rural governance?

Can rural governance be a value goal in itself, and what is the difference between rural governance and rural control? Ultimately, it is about establishing what value judgment criteria to use.

In evaluating ancient rural governance, different value dimensions can be applied. The core is how to implement human values. Whether the territory shrinks or expands, centralization of power strengthens or weakens, unification or fragmentation, governance during prosperity or decline, the perspective and criteria used for observation, analysis, and evaluation all involve questions about which value standards to adopt. Particular attention should be given to indicators of human development, the respect for human rights, and the flourishing of thought and culture in society. When researching ancient rural governance, there are also fundamental questions regarding value orientation: should it aim to control society and consolidate dynastic rule, or should it promote grassroots vitality and the dignity and development of individuals? These questions run through the stance and methods of governance research.

Since “rural governance” entered the central policy agenda over a decade ago, going through two phases of “new rural construction” and “rural revitalization,” there have been shifts in the wording of policy objectives, from “democratic management” to “effective governance.” In examining the evolution of policy objectives, there are several value-related questions, goal-related questions, and method-related questions that require in-depth investigation and research. This involves understanding what “effective governance” means. Many governance measures may appear effective to the government, but they may not be perceived as effective by the peasants. In some cases, measures that the government deems excellent governance may not be endorsed by the peasants and may even be met with opposing evaluations.

 Although control and governance have many similarities, “governance” cannot be simplistically equated with “control.” In many cases, it may seem that control has been strengthened, but in reality, the capacity for governance has declined. The stability or order created by coercive control is not necessarily reliable and cannot be considered good governance. This issue exists in both modern and ancient times. Sima Qian, in Records of the Grand Historian  mentioned “using evil officials for governance,”以恶为治 referring to the practice of employing wicked officials to maintain stability and order for the ruling class. This was a significant phenomenon in ancient society and provides many insights for later generations. Therefore, the fundamental question is what kind of value standards to use in evaluating rural governance. This requires shifting value scales, expanding research perspectives, and adding new research dimensions.

In the study of rural governance history, a crucial dimension to observe is “appreciate the value of human beings” and “human development.” To borrow a phrase from the historians of the Annales school, “history must insist upon the value of individual human beings.” How does research on rural governance defend the value of people? There are many deep-seated issues that need to be explored further.

(August 21, 2022)

(https://www.aisixiang.com) Category: Academic > Political Science > Political Science Speeches Article Link: https://www.aisixiang.com/data/146325.html

Appendix  

“Sima Qian, in Records of the Grand Historian  mentioned “using evil officials for governance,”以恶为治 referring to the practice of employing wicked officials to maintain stability and order for the ruling class. “  

Ran down the reference.  Looks like a critique of modern China a tool Mao Zedong himself recommended: “use the past to serve the present”:.

From the Chronicles of the Historian passage cited above on governing through evil officials:  酷吏列传 白话文翻译  [English translation of modern Chinese translation] ancient Chinese text at 史記 卷一百二十二　酷吏列传第六十二  汉·司马迁 this is the modern Chinese translation of the phrase in which it appears《自从王温舒等人用残酷凶狠的手段处理政事以来，郡守、都尉、诸侯和二千石的官员想要治理政事的，所采用的治理方法大多都效法王温舒，然而官吏和百姓却越发不将犯法当回事，于是盗贼层出不穷。》context below; previous sentence bolded in the translation below. In his closing remarks, Zhao is making a comparison with China today.

Wang Wenshu was once again appointed as the Commandant. He was known for his disregard for etiquette and culture, and in his official duties, he often acted foolishly and without discernment. He could not distinguish right from wrong. However, once he assumed the position of Commandant, his mood brightened.

He took charge of capturing thieves and bandits and was already very familiar with the customs of the Guanzhong region. He understood the local powerbrokers and corrupt officials well, and as a result, these powerful and corrupt officials were all reinstated to provide him with advice and strategy. His officials conducted thorough investigations, so the thieves and wicked young men resorted to methods like setting up secret reporting and denunciation boxes. They bribed informants to frame others. They stationed inspectors in fields and streets to scrutinize those suspected of wrongdoing and theft.

Wang Wenshu was known for his flattery and sycophancy, excelling at currying favor with those in power. He treated those without influence as if they were servants. If powerful families were involved, no matter how many crimes they had committed, he would not intervene. However, when dealing with those without influence, even if they were noble relatives of the imperial family, he would go out of his way to humiliate and persecute them.

He manipulated laws and regulations, skillfully defaming innocent commoners and coercing powerful clans. During his tenure as Commandant, he dealt with political matters in this manner. For those who were cunning and deceitful, he would relentlessly investigate their crimes, often subjecting them to severe physical punishment and leaving them to die in prison. None of those convicted were able to leave prison.

His trusted subordinates were as brutal as wolves and tigers. Consequently, those who were cunning and wicked in the Commandant’s jurisdiction, especially those of lower status, hid in fear and dared not emerge. Those with influence, however, lobbied and spread his reputation, praising his achievements in governance. After governing for several years, most of his subordinate officials had become wealthy through their abuse of power.

After Wang Wenshu returned from his campaign against Dong Yue, he failed to conform to the Emperor’s intentions during a council meeting, violating minor laws, and was therefore convicted and removed from his position. At that time, the Emperor wanted to build the “Tongtiantai” (a celestial observatory or tower), but couldn’t find anyone capable of overseeing the project. Wang Wenshu requested an investigation into the evasion of military service by his subordinates, revealing tens of thousands of individuals who could be put to work on the construction. The Emperor was delighted and appointed him as the “Shaofu” (Steward), later changing his position to “Right Neishi” (Right Interior Minister). Wang Wenshu’s method of handling political affairs remained largely unchanged, rarely prohibiting corrupt practices.

However, Wang Wenshu later committed legal violations and lost his position. Shortly afterward, he was appointed as the “Right Fu” (Right Assistant), acting as the Deputy Commandant. His method of handling political affairs remained the same as before.

Over a year later, as the Han Dynasty was preparing to campaign against Da Wan, the court ordered the conscription of capable officials. Wang Wenshu protected his subordinates and hid a man named Hua Cheng from recruitment. When someone reported that Wang Wenshu had accepted stolen funds from the registered cavalry and committed other wrongdoings, these offenses would have led to the extermination of his entire clan according to the law. Consequently, Wang Wenshu took his own life. His two brothers and two in-laws were also executed for their respective crimes. Guanlu Xu Ziwei lamented, “It’s tragic! In ancient times, there were cases of exterminating three generations, but Wang Wenshu’s crimes led to the extermination of five generations.”

After Wang Wenshu’s death, his family possessed significant wealth, while many years later, Yin Qi, who held the position of Commander of Huaiyang, died of illness with less than fifty gold pieces in his possession. Wang Wenshu was responsible for numerous killings in Huaiyang. When he died, his enemies planned to burn his body, but his family secretly transported his remains back for burial.

Since Wang Wenshu and others had dealt with political affairs in a cruel and ruthless manner, the methods adopted by county officials, commandants, feudal lords, and officials of the rank of two thousand piculs in managing affairs mostly followed Wang Wenshu’s example. However, officials and commoners increasingly disregarded the law, giving rise to a surge in banditry. In Nanyang, there were Meimian and Baizheng; in the Chu region, there were Yinzong and Dushao; in the Qi region, there was Xubo; and in the Zhao and Yan regions, there were Jianlu and Fansheng, among others.

These larger groups numbered in the thousands and declared themselves kings, attacking towns, seizing weapons from armories, releasing prisoners sentenced to death, binding and humiliating prefects and commandants, killing officials of the two thousand picul rank, issuing proclamations, and pressuring counties to provide them with food. Smaller groups numbered in the hundreds and engaged in rampant rural robbery.

The Emperor then dispatched the Chief Censor (Yushi Zhongcheng) and the Chief Clerk of the Prime Minister (Changshi) to oversee the suppression of bandits. However, this did not completely eradicate the problem. Subsequently, Guanlu Xu Ziwei and several other auxiliary commandants, along with the former Nine Ministers like Zhang De, wearing court attire and carrying imperial symbols and tiger tally, led military forces to surround and kill over ten thousand individuals. Those who supplied them with food were also sentenced to death according to the law. Several counties were implicated, and the total number reached into the thousands.

Several years later, they finally apprehended a few leaders. However, the scattered and regrouped small bandit groups took refuge in rugged terrain, making them difficult to subdue. They often congregated in groups, and there was little that could be done about them. Consequently, the court issued the “Shenming Law,” which stated that if there were bandit groups and officials failed to detect them or did not capture the prescribed number, officials ranked below two thousand piculs down to the lowest ranking officials involved in handling the matter would be put to death. After this, lower-ranking officials feared being executed, and even if they discovered bandits, they were afraid to report them, fearing they would not be able to apprehend the bandits and would be punished by the law, which would also implicate their superiors. Therefore, banditry continued to increase as officials and commoners hid and manipulated legal provisions to evade punishment.

Chinese text of the article (sometimes the Party has second thoughts and erases articles: history is made by those who write it and those who erase it!):

赵树凯：乡村治理的古今之辨

——在中国农民战争史研究会2022年会上的发言

选择字号：大 中 小   本文共阅读 2700 次 更新时间：2023-09-28 08:48

进入专题： 乡村治理  

● 赵树凯 (进入专栏)  

中国农民战争史研究会的这次年会，把古代乡村治理作为主题，非常富有创意。我是做当代农民问题研究的，对于古代问题不敢贸然发言，只能从现实出发提出几个“问题”，没有答案，只有困惑，希望得到指正。

一、怎样界定古代和现代“乡村治理”?

一般而言，古代乡村治理和现代乡村治理，都可以理解为管理、统治，或者说就是在农村方面的治国理政。但是，如果从现代“治理”理论来理解“乡村治理”，则不然。因为，最近二十年间“治理”研究的兴起有特定背景。

从上世纪八九十年代开始，世界银行从非洲等国家的扶贫经验总结中提出“治理”问题，认为实现发展需要一个好的治理，并赋予“治理”新的解释，把“治理”区别于通常的管理统治。管理、统治强调自上而下的管控，强调权力一元化，而“治理”则强调多中心权力结构，强调“协同共治”。在这种新的权力结构的基础之上，现代治理还要求治理过程的透明度、回应性、问责性、参与性等等。21世纪之交，这个意义上的“治理”理论兴起。按照这样的理解，显然“治理”不同于通常的管理。因此，在这样的背景下，现代乡村治理应该区别于与于古代社会治理。

在政策语言系统中，本世纪之前没有“乡村治理”这个概念。从政策意义上理解，“乡村治理”是进入新世纪才出现的“政策概念”，出现于2006年的中央1号文件。这个文件是部署新农村建设的，首次提出“乡村治理”的政策要求，内容包括基层组织建设、村民自治、社会化服务体系建设。之前，农村研究学者提出“乡村治理”，是基于世纪之交农民税费负担引起社会乱象和冲突，“乡村治理”成为重要话题。更早时候，“治理”作为农村工作词汇运用，是基层政府通常所说“社会治安综合治理”。

在中国古代典籍中，是否有“乡村治理”的概念，我孤陋寡闻，不知道。在我有限的阅读中，明代永乐年间黄淮、杨士奇等编《历代名臣奏议》，是商周以下至宋元的奏议汇编。全书分66门类，其中第四类叫“治道”，可以说是属于治理。这本奏折汇编的主要门类有君德、圣学、郊庙、治道、经国、礼乐、用人、选举、法令、兵制、荒政、水利、理财、御边等，其中“治道”主要是讲皇帝处理和大臣之间的关系的，皇帝怎样统御臣子，或者说是讲“精英治理”的，不涉及基层社会。

我总的感觉是，不论在古代农村研究，还是现代农村研究，在如何使用“治理”需要先有概念上的界定，否则难以对话。

二、“乡村治理”是研究视角，还是研究领域?

一般来说，“治理”既可以是研究视角，也可以是研究领域。但在我看来， “治理”首先是一种研究视角，就是说从“治理”的角度来研究古代农村问题，有了角度之后再厘清问题。如太平天国研究、义和团研究，都有比较明确的研究对象，或者说有具体的社会历史事件和现象。但是研究“治理”，则事件、现象不容易清晰界定。从太平天国研究、义和团研究来讲，在这个领域里可以研究“治理”问题，如这种战乱既是农村治理的结果，也是影响到以后的治理。其他历史现象也一样，如宋代的王安石变法，青苗法带来哪些治理问题？再如明代的张居正改革，一条鞭法带来哪些治理问题？都可以成为乡村治理研究的专题。在我看来，把“乡村治理”作为研究问题提出来，是可以的，但是，如果把“乡村治理”作为研究对象，则面临复杂的情况，边界难以清晰界定。

英文学界有句话，“任何事情都是治理”（Everything is Governance ），西方对于治理研究领域的界定也众说纷纭。2000年前后，美国学术界有一些讨论，我个人比较认同的一种界定是，治理主要有三个领域：动员政治支持、管理社会冲突、提供公共服务。大致上，可以从这三个方面对治理的研究领域做出分析。但是，这三方面问题，对于不同的治理主体来讲是不同的事情。现在通常使用的乡村治理、基层治理、地方治理等概念，在具体展开讨论研究时都面临概念界定。现在的困境是，研究者心里往往各有假定，看上去很热闹的讨论，其实是各说各话，难以沟通交流。

中国古代三大农书，贾思勰《齐民要术》、元代王祯《农书》、明代徐光启《农政全书》，都对乡村治理有所涉猎。这些著述的主体内容是生产和技术的，但绪论部分似乎也可以说是讲“治理”。《农政全书》全书六十卷，期中十八卷讲“荒政”（从第四十三卷到第六十卷），就是讲如何处理灾荒，占全书1/4篇幅。书中有“备荒总论”，是关于救荒规律的总结归纳。第四十三卷开篇讲：“救灾恤患，尤当在早。若灾伤之民，救之于未饥，则用物约而所及广”。“救之于已饥，则用物博而所及微。”也有很多的管理技术问题。第四十四卷专门讲如何设置“粥场”：“荒年煮粥，全在官司处置有法，就村落散设粥场”“城四门择空旷处为粥场，绳列数十行,每行两头竖木橛，系绳作界。饥民至，令入行中，挨次坐定，男女异行。有病者另入一行，乞丐者另入一行。”这里具体讲到了灾荒之年救济场所粥场如何合理设置，如何维持秩序，有相当的专业性，可以归结为基层治理术之一种。古代农书中关于此类治理术的陈述颇多。

灾荒贯穿古代社会，荒政属于古代社会的乡村危机治理，是古代乡村治理的基本问题。当然，不同的时代，治理危机表现不一样。宋代沈括《梦溪笔谈》主体是讲科技，也有相当部分是在讲治理，如第十一卷“官政”谈到“范文正浙西救灾”，介绍灾荒年间官府可以经建土木工程，包括修建祠庙，来增加灾民收入，缓解生活困境；第12卷讲“吏无常禄”，都属于基层治理问题。我们从这些阅读中可以受到启发，有了“治理”的研究视角，会在研究中发现新问题。

三、乡村治理研究是否需要学术框架?

所谓学术框架，是构成这一研究门类的核心要素，如主要的观察对象、主要的社会现象、基本的概念使用、重要的分析方法等等。任何专门学术领域发展都离不开这些条件。如果没有基本的规范性要素，研究会显得非常散乱。当然，任何问题的研究过程中，一定时期内散乱现象不可避免，但是，如果走不出散乱，则研究难以推进。因为“治理”概念的宽泛，研究对象容易发散，散乱现象就特别突出。研究路线的确立，根本上取决于“问题”如何提出。现在的基层治理研究，看上去繁华热闹，其实很大程度上是在打乱仗，就是因为基本的学术框架建立不起来，尤其是缺乏基本的逻辑性框架。分析路线和框架往往被政治宣传所主导和规制，学术陷入困境。

学术框架是在研究竞争中逐步形成的，不能依靠某些权威设计制定，谁也不能垄断关于研究框架的解释或设定。对于农村治理研究而言，学术框架的建立需要走出现实的政策框架或政治解释框架，从根本上立足于现实生活的观察分析，立足于学术积累，尊重学术发展规律。

也许最重要的学习途径是要借鉴前人研究。在我看来，萧公权的《中国乡村——19世纪的帝国控制》堪称典范，不论对现代还是古代的乡村治理研究，都有非常重要的学术借鉴意义。这可以说是一部“乡村治理”研究的早期经典。他还没有使用“乡村治理”的概念，而是使用了“乡村控制体系”。当然，乡村治理不同于乡村控制，但显然乡村控制是乡村治理的核心部分。萧公权分析的帝国晚期乡村控制体系，包括治安监控（保甲体系）、乡村税收（里甲体系）、饥荒控制（社仓及其他粮仓），思想控制（乡约、书院、义学等）。这样的分析框架，对于我们今天研究乡村治理有重要启发。

现在国家治理研究非常繁荣，但在我看来，国家治理是一个政治化概念，并非学术化概念。在国家治理的话语下，很多国家研究中政治问题研究被覆盖了，模糊化了。如果把国家治理概念再应用到古代研究中，情况更为复杂。

四、古代农民战争史研究可否打通现代史研究?

研究古代乡村治理，离不开关注农民战争。20世纪中国革命也是一场农民战争。以往的研究，强调战争性质不同，如有没有无产阶级领导，有没有马克思主义指导。作为农民战争，太平天国第一次借助了西方思想（利用基督教创立拜上帝教），作为理论思想资源；中国共产党领导的革命，是运用了西方的马克思列宁主义理论。古代农民战争和现代农民战争之间，是否有某种内在联系，或者说是某种一脉相承的东西？裴宜理早期著作《华北的造反与革命》，分析捻军、红枪会和共产党武装的内在渊源，对于理解中国革命具有重要启发。

传统农民战争怎样发展为现代中国革命？研究这样的宏大问题，需要拓展研究范式或者话语体系。新的研究需要更新视野，建立在更宏大、更深远的历史背景和理论创新基础上，而不是局限于某种既有解释、某种既定的叙事方式。如果略加考究就会发现，一些耳熟能详的经典性解释事实上无法成立。如说中国革命的胜利是因为解决了农民的土地问题，而事实是，早期用“打土豪分田地”办法发动革命的努力是失败的，所谓“轰轰烈烈的大革命失败了”。共产党力量的发展壮大，恰恰是在放弃了激进土地政策之后的抗战时期。研究不同历史条件下两种以农民为主体的战争，当然要强调两种战争的本质不同或者性质不同，但是问题在于，在非本质的方面有哪些相同或者想通之处？这些相同、相通的方面怎样影响本质的、性质的东西，或者说，那些关于性质、本质的解释在多大程度上能够成立。另一个问题是，激进时期的人民公社化运动，若干方面和太平天国的经济政策，可否进行比较研究，并从中找到某些深层的历史性关联因素，也是值得思考的。

在乡村治理史研究中，一个基本问题是：如何理解农民的政治意愿、政策需求，以及这种意愿需求和现实制度的关系。农民为了土地而参加战争，但是，农民是否有意愿获得土地以后再把土地交给国家并进一步集体化？是否愿意粮食等农产品低价被国家统购而放弃自由市场交易？这些问题都可以开展具体而深入的研究。在这个历史过程中，如何理解农民意志与国家意志？不仅需要学习借鉴既有的研究成果，而且需要走出既有的研究成果。否则，就在既有的研究中淹没了自己。要把历史事实搞得尽量清楚，最重要的是依靠历史学。但对历史事实的分析透视解释，而是要尽可能的多学科力量，其他社会科学学科也有广阔的施展空间。

由历史上的农村困境，联想到的另一个问题是政治与经济的关系。通常可以说经济决定政治、文化，政治是经济的集中表现，但问题是，在若干历史条件下，政治、文化对于经济是否有某种超越作用？经济影响政治，政治影响经济，情况非常复杂，不可以轻言“规律”。改革开放前的中国农村，有大量人口长期不得温饱，有的年份甚至出现大饥荒，导致巨量非正常死亡，这些都可以说是经济问题，但是，这些经济问题的根源却在政治上，更具体说是在政策和制度安排上。显然，在这长时段农村发展中，是政治决定了经济，而并不是当时农村经济状况决定了要“以阶级斗争为纲”，要在农村内部大搞政治斗争。再具体一点来看，可以提出这样的问题：人民公社制度在中国农村实行二十几年，是农村经济发展的必然反映，还是某种乌托邦政治的集中反映？显然，人民公社作为制度出现并不是农村经济的必然要求。人民公社作为一种总体性社会控制体系，应该从经济上解释，还是从政治上解释？这些都需要深入研究。

五、研究古代乡村治理的现代意义何在?

乡村治理能否以乡村控制为价值目标？乡村治理与乡村控制有何区别？根本上说是建立何种价值判断标准。

判断古代乡村治理，可以有不同的价值维度。核心是如何贯彻人的价值。疆域缩小或者扩大，中央集权强盛或者衰弱，还有统一或者分裂，治世抑或衰世，站在什么角度来观察考量、分析评价，都有采用何种价值标准的问题。应当特别重视是，人的发展指标，人的权利得到尊重，社会的思想文化繁荣等等。研究古代乡村治理研究，也有基本价值取向问题：是控制社会、巩固王朝统治，还是促进民间活力，促进人的尊严与发展？这些问题既贯穿治理研究的立场，也贯穿方法。

自从十几年前“乡村治理”进入中央政策议程以来，经历了“新农村建设”和“乡村振兴”两个阶段，其中关于乡村治理的文件政策表述，从“管理民主”变为“治理有效”。考察政策目标的演变过程，这中间有若干价值问题、目标问题、方法问题需要深入考察研究。这涉及到如何理解“治理有效”。有很多治理举措，在政府看来有效，对农民看来就未必有效。某些政府认为很好的“治理”举措，农民也未认同，甚至持相反评价。进一步可以说，虽然控制与治理有许多相通，不能把“治理”简单化地等同于“控制”。在很多情况下，看上去是“控制”能力增强了，实质上“治理”能力下降了。强制管控所形成的稳定或秩序，未必真正可靠，谈不上是良好治理。不论在现代，还是在古代，都有这样的问题。司马迁在《史记》中讲“以恶为治”，指酷吏拿作恶来当统治方式，以使统治者安享太平，是古代社会重要现象，也给后人很多启迪。所以，用什么样的价值标准来看待乡村治理，这是一个带根本性的问题。这就需要转换价值尺度，拓展研究视角，增加新的研究维度。

在乡村治理史研究中，非常重要的观察维度是“人的价值”“人的发展”。借用年鉴学派一句话，“历史学必须捍卫人的价值”。乡村治理研究研究怎样捍卫人的价值？许多深层问题需要展开。

（2022年8月21日）

进入 赵树凯 的专栏     进入专题： 乡村治理  

本文责编：SuperAdmin
发信站：爱思想（https://www.aisixiang.com）
栏目： 学术 > 政治学 > 政治学演讲稿
本文链接：https://www.aisixiang.com/data/146325.html

About 高大伟 David Cowhig

After retirement translated, with wife Jessie, Liao Yiwu's 2019 "Bullets and Opium", and have been studying things 格物致知. Worked 25 years as a US State Department Foreign Service Officer including ten years at US Embassy Beijing and US Consulate General Chengdu and four years as a China Analyst in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Before State I translated Japanese and Chinese scientific and technical books and articles into English freelance for six years. Before that I taught English at Tunghai University in Taiwan for three years. And before that I worked two summers on Norwegian farms, milking cows and feeding chickens.
This entry was posted in History 历史, Politics 政治, Science, Technology and Academic 科技学术 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.