李安宅未刊手稿《十年来美国的人类学》及其解读
|
摘要
李安宅撰写的《十年来美国的人类学》是其在美讲学期间应国内人类学家卫惠林、何联奎所约而作,论述了1938-1947年美国人类学的理论进展及其学科特性,梳理了美国人类学界相关人物的动态和主要的书刊。这一观察海外人类学进展的重要文献,具有重要的学术史料价值。文章首次披露李安宅手稿全文,并对其写作背景及该文所透露的有关问题略作讨论。
Li Anzhai( 1900-1985) was a sociologist and anthropologist in modern China. For more than ten years,I have been paying attention to the life and learning of Li Anzhai,searching for published and unpublished works by him. I recently discovered Shinian lai meiguo de renleixue( American Anthropology during the Past Ten Years). It is one of Li's manuscripts,but it is not found in any of Li's publications. Moreover,it has not been included in the catalogue of Li's works compiled by himself and others. As far as I can see,there is,as yet,no academic citation of this article.This important document relates to Chinese people's observation of the progress of anthropology abroad during the late 1940 s,and is an important academic historical document involving several Chinese anthropologists. It also has great value for our understanding of the development and trends of American anthropology during the 1930 s and1940 s. I would like to make the full text of this manuscript public for the first time here,and provide a brief discussion on the background of writing this paper,and some related issues revealed in it.Li Anzhai went to the United States in 1947,and was a visiting professor at a Yale University research institute. This article was written by Li Anzhai at the request of two scholars. The first one is Wei Huilin who,before Li went abroad in the summer of 1947,asked him to write a report on recent trends in American anthropology after he ar-rived in the United States; the second one is He Liankui who wrote a letter asking for Li's contribution to minzuxue nianbao( the Annual Ethnological Journal). It is an article that was written from references from the Yearbooks of the British Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Americana.Those materials found in the yearbooks should typically be more classical,and the compilers of the anthropology and sociology sections were also often leaders in academic circles. Therefore,the authority and academic nature of their contents should be guaranteed. Li Anzhai studied at both the University of California and Yale University from 1934 to 1936. More than ten years later,Li returned to the same institutions in order to recall the past in the light of the present. Moreover,he could also include Chinese anthropology and the experience of frontier research as a reference.Therefore,this manuscript provides a long-term perspective of a longitudinal comparison and crosssectional comparison between Chinese anthropology and American anthropology.There are several core points in his article to which I would like to draw the readers' attention.First,in Li's view, American anthropology was quite developed,whereas sociology was relatively less so. I speculate that this might be due to the reason that the formation of the United States was a target of study of British anthropology; or,after the United States became strong,many countries and places became the study targets object ofAmerican anthropology. So,accordingly,anthropologists had more powerful academic voices. Li Anzhai did not clarify this point,and thus,leaves the issue open for discussion.Second,Li noted that one of the characteristics of American anthropology is that it underwent a process from "a focus on field study"to a "strong interest in theory". He made a thorough analysis of the causes and manifestations of this. On the one hand,he said that it reflected the cumulative result of conducting a large number of field studies,and the contact between different disciplines,cultural areas and industries which promoted the emergence of issues and theories. On the other hand,it reflected that a large amount of theoretical thinking and field research will ultimately promote field work,which,in turn,further increases the necessity and importance of the discipline of anthropology and its social application in the United States.Li Anzhai even regarded anthropology as the "center of scientific development within the study of human relations",and believed that it could promote harmony among individuals,countries and the international community. Li Anzhai's anthropological practice in China seems have followed the path of( combining) theoretical research,field research and applied research. He translated and/or compiled a variety of anthropological theoretical works,published a series of papers on Tibetan religion centered on the investigation of the Labrang Temple,and also systematically reflected on Applied Anthropology within the process of participating in border education and service. He thought that at that time China's applied anthropology was linked with "frontier social work ". For this reason,he wrote a book called bianjiang shehui gongzuo( Frontier Social Work) which elaborated his ideas and propositions on how to deal with frontier work using anthropological theories and methods.In order to enable readers to read Li Anzhai's observations on American anthropology at that time,I have sorted out the full text of his manuscript and published it here. It should be noted that in order to respect the original text,the entire text,including the translation of the names,remains the same. It is hereby stated that there were some differences in the translation of some institutions and names at that time.
Li Anzhai( 1900-1985) was a sociologist and anthropologist in modern China. For more than ten years,I have been paying attention to the life and learning of Li Anzhai,searching for published and unpublished works by him. I recently discovered Shinian lai meiguo de renleixue( American Anthropology during the Past Ten Years). It is one of Li's manuscripts,but it is not found in any of Li's publications. Moreover,it has not been included in the catalogue of Li's works compiled by himself and others. As far as I can see,there is,as yet,no academic citation of this article.This important document relates to Chinese people's observation of the progress of anthropology abroad during the late 1940 s,and is an important academic historical document involving several Chinese anthropologists. It also has great value for our understanding of the development and trends of American anthropology during the 1930 s and1940 s. I would like to make the full text of this manuscript public for the first time here,and provide a brief discussion on the background of writing this paper,and some related issues revealed in it.Li Anzhai went to the United States in 1947,and was a visiting professor at a Yale University research institute. This article was written by Li Anzhai at the request of two scholars. The first one is Wei Huilin who,before Li went abroad in the summer of 1947,asked him to write a report on recent trends in American anthropology after he ar-rived in the United States; the second one is He Liankui who wrote a letter asking for Li's contribution to minzuxue nianbao( the Annual Ethnological Journal). It is an article that was written from references from the Yearbooks of the British Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Americana.Those materials found in the yearbooks should typically be more classical,and the compilers of the anthropology and sociology sections were also often leaders in academic circles. Therefore,the authority and academic nature of their contents should be guaranteed. Li Anzhai studied at both the University of California and Yale University from 1934 to 1936. More than ten years later,Li returned to the same institutions in order to recall the past in the light of the present. Moreover,he could also include Chinese anthropology and the experience of frontier research as a reference.Therefore,this manuscript provides a long-term perspective of a longitudinal comparison and crosssectional comparison between Chinese anthropology and American anthropology.There are several core points in his article to which I would like to draw the readers' attention.First,in Li's view, American anthropology was quite developed,whereas sociology was relatively less so. I speculate that this might be due to the reason that the formation of the United States was a target of study of British anthropology; or,after the United States became strong,many countries and places became the study targets object ofAmerican anthropology. So,accordingly,anthropologists had more powerful academic voices. Li Anzhai did not clarify this point,and thus,leaves the issue open for discussion.Second,Li noted that one of the characteristics of American anthropology is that it underwent a process from "a focus on field study"to a "strong interest in theory". He made a thorough analysis of the causes and manifestations of this. On the one hand,he said that it reflected the cumulative result of conducting a large number of field studies,and the contact between different disciplines,cultural areas and industries which promoted the emergence of issues and theories. On the other hand,it reflected that a large amount of theoretical thinking and field research will ultimately promote field work,which,in turn,further increases the necessity and importance of the discipline of anthropology and its social application in the United States.Li Anzhai even regarded anthropology as the "center of scientific development within the study of human relations",and believed that it could promote harmony among individuals,countries and the international community. Li Anzhai's anthropological practice in China seems have followed the path of( combining) theoretical research,field research and applied research. He translated and/or compiled a variety of anthropological theoretical works,published a series of papers on Tibetan religion centered on the investigation of the Labrang Temple,and also systematically reflected on Applied Anthropology within the process of participating in border education and service. He thought that at that time China's applied anthropology was linked with "frontier social work ". For this reason,he wrote a book called bianjiang shehui gongzuo( Frontier Social Work) which elaborated his ideas and propositions on how to deal with frontier work using anthropological theories and methods.In order to enable readers to read Li Anzhai's observations on American anthropology at that time,I have sorted out the full text of his manuscript and published it here. It should be noted that in order to respect the original text,the entire text,including the translation of the names,remains the same. It is hereby stated that there were some differences in the translation of some institutions and names at that time.
引文
[1]中国边政学会开会员大会[J].边政公论,1946,6(3):359.
[2]卫纪慰.台湾著名社会学家卫惠林先生[C]//山西文史资料(第4辑),1996:963.
[3]中国民族学会准予备案——批中国民族学会[J].内政公报,1935,8(3):36.
[4]中国民族学会简章草案[J].新社会科学,1934,1(2):276.
[5]社会学界消息:中国民族学会近况[J].社会学讯,1947(4):4-5.
[6]中国民族学会年会提案[J].边疆通讯,1948,5(4):15.
[7]李安宅.边疆社会工作[M].北京:中华书局,1944.
Li Anzhai.bianjiang shehui gongzuo(Frontier Social Work).Beijing:zhonghua shuju,1944.
Shehuixuejie xiaoxi:zhongguo minzuxuehui jinkuang(News from the Field of Sociology:Recent Situation of Chinese Association of Ethnology).In Newsletter of Sociology,1947(4):4-5.
Wei Jiwei.taiwan zhuming shehuixuejia weihunlin xiansheng(Wei huilin,A Famous Sociologist in Taiwan).In Shanxi Cultural and Historical Document,1996(4):963.
Zhongguo bianzheng xuehui kai huiyuan dahui(China Association of Border Politics holds a general meeting of its members).In Bianzheng Gonglun,1946,6(3):359.
Zhongguo minzuxuehui zhunyu bei'an yipi zhongguo minzu xuehui(Approval for Putting on Records of A Batch of Chinese Associations of Ethnology).In Neizheng Gongbao,1935,8(3):36.
Zhongguo minzu xuehui jianzhang cao'an(Draft of General Rules of the Chinese Association of Ethnology).In New Sociology,1934,1(2):276.
Zhongguo minzuxuehui hui tian(Proposal by Chinese Association of Ethnology).In Frontier Newsletter,1948,5(4):15.
(1)李绍明先生2007年发表《略论中国人类学的华西学派》(《广西民族研究》2007年第3期)提出这一学术概念。两年后,李先生魂归故里,但追随的声音不绝如缕。2000年陈波出版《李安宅与华西学派人类学》(巴蜀书社),介绍了李安宅的人类学思想,但未对“华西学派”人类学的形成与发展做出阐述。2017年李锦组织申报国家社科基金重大招标项目《20世纪20-40年代人类学“华西学派”的学术体系研究》获准,笔者承担子课题《人类学“华西学派”的形成与发展》研究。
(2)实际上20世纪30-40年代边疆学术刊物较多,官方支持力度较大。因抗战建国特殊形势下,国民政府比较注重了解边情,但对谈论民族问题较为敏感。相对来说,边疆研究比民族研究更易获得官方认同。参见王利平、张原、汤芸,李绍明:《20世纪上半叶的中国边疆和边政研究---李绍明先生访谈录》,《西南民族大学学报》2009年第12期。
(3)参见陈某《关于李安宅与蒋匪帮的关系》,未刊稿,1968年11月10日。某学院革命委员会政治工作组盖章,11月13日。材料上有批注:陈某“系右派分子,所写材料供参考”。
(4)高伦举《社会学系》,《华大校刊》1949年4月30日文学院特刊,第13页。
(5)四川大学档案馆藏华西大学档案,编号:C.JX.CJD-312。转引自藏乃措《民国时期华西边疆研究所考述》,陕西师范大学硕士论文,2013年,第19-21页。
(6)高伦举《社会学系》,《华大校刊》1949年4月30日文学院特刊,第14页。
(7)即马林诺夫斯基(Bronislaw Kaspar Malinowski),1884-1942,英国社会人类学家,人类学功能学派的主要代表。
(8)即Margaret Mead(1901-1978),美国人类学家,研究社会化和童年培养,性角色本性及典型人格。
(9)即William Lloyd Warner(1898-1970),美国人类学家、社会学家,将人类学方法应用于当代社会问题,如城市、商业环境中的种族关系和阶级结构等。
(10)美国人类学家,又译查普尔、查普利、恰普勒。
(11)即赫斯科维茨(Melville J.Herskovits),1895-1963。
(12)美国人类学家,1870-1947,曾任纽约自然历史博物馆人类学部部长。
(13)即Charles A,Ellwood,美国社会学家,著有《社会哲学史》《文化进化论》。
(14)即拉德克利夫-布朗,英国社会人类学家,功能学派创始人之一。
(15)保罗·雷丁(1883-1959),美国人类学家、民俗学家。
(16)美国人类学家,也译克洛伊伯,著有《文化:概念和定义批判分析》。
(17)Franz Boas(1858-1942),现多译弗朗茨·博厄斯,或译法兰兹·鲍亚士,是德国裔美国人类学家,现代人类学的先驱之一,享有“美国人类学之父”的名号;也是语言学家,美国语言学研究的先驱。
(18)即爱德华·萨皮尔(Edward Sapir),1884-1939,美国人类学家,语言学家,著有《语言论》。
(19)即林顿(1884-1953),美国人类学家,心理学家。
(20)国立边疆文化教育馆简称“边教馆”,隶属教育部,掌理边疆文化之研究及发展事宜,下设研究组、编译组和文物组。民族学家凌纯声为首任馆长。
(21)又译哈勒威尔,美国心理人类学派的代表人物。
(22)美国人类学家雷德菲尔德(Robert.Redfield),1897-1958,美国人类学家,社会学家,著有《尤卡坦的民间文化》《小社区》《农民社会和文化》等。
(23)即Leslie Spier,1893-1961,美国人类学家。
(24)即宾西尔文尼亚。
(25)即威斯康辛。
(26)积极心理学创始人赛利格曼(Siligman)。
(27)J.F.恩布里(J.F.Embree):《须砺村:一个日本村庄》(Sure Mura,A Japanese Village,U-niversity of Chicago Press,1939.
(28)疑有误。科斯敏斯基(1886-1959)苏联历史学家,专治世界中世纪史,著有《十三世纪的英国农村》《十三世纪英国土地史研究》《中世纪史学史,五至十九世纪》等。
(29)本书通俗地介绍了美国描写语言学的基本理论和分析方法,作者为(美)B.布洛赫(Bernard Bloch),(美)G.L.特雷杰(George L.Trager)。
(30)科拉·杜依波丝(C.Du Bois)在印尼附近的阿罗岛进行田野调查后,于1944年出版了《阿罗岛人》(The People of Alor:University of Minnesota Press.,l 944),他的研究重点是儿童教养方式和人格的关系。他提出了一个新概念“众趋人格结构”(Model personality structure),来说明族群人格。
(31)即刘易斯·芒福德,美国社会哲学家,著有《枝条与石头》《科技与文明》《生存的价值》。
(32)戈尔维奇(G.Gurvitch,1894-1965)系法国社会学家,曾任国际社会学学会主席,著有《法律社会学》《社会学与辩证法》等著作。
(33)即基德(A.V.Kidder),美国现代考古学的奠基人之一。
[2]卫纪慰.台湾著名社会学家卫惠林先生[C]//山西文史资料(第4辑),1996:963.
[3]中国民族学会准予备案——批中国民族学会[J].内政公报,1935,8(3):36.
[4]中国民族学会简章草案[J].新社会科学,1934,1(2):276.
[5]社会学界消息:中国民族学会近况[J].社会学讯,1947(4):4-5.
[6]中国民族学会年会提案[J].边疆通讯,1948,5(4):15.
[7]李安宅.边疆社会工作[M].北京:中华书局,1944.
Li Anzhai.bianjiang shehui gongzuo(Frontier Social Work).Beijing:zhonghua shuju,1944.
Shehuixuejie xiaoxi:zhongguo minzuxuehui jinkuang(News from the Field of Sociology:Recent Situation of Chinese Association of Ethnology).In Newsletter of Sociology,1947(4):4-5.
Wei Jiwei.taiwan zhuming shehuixuejia weihunlin xiansheng(Wei huilin,A Famous Sociologist in Taiwan).In Shanxi Cultural and Historical Document,1996(4):963.
Zhongguo bianzheng xuehui kai huiyuan dahui(China Association of Border Politics holds a general meeting of its members).In Bianzheng Gonglun,1946,6(3):359.
Zhongguo minzuxuehui zhunyu bei'an yipi zhongguo minzu xuehui(Approval for Putting on Records of A Batch of Chinese Associations of Ethnology).In Neizheng Gongbao,1935,8(3):36.
Zhongguo minzu xuehui jianzhang cao'an(Draft of General Rules of the Chinese Association of Ethnology).In New Sociology,1934,1(2):276.
Zhongguo minzuxuehui hui tian(Proposal by Chinese Association of Ethnology).In Frontier Newsletter,1948,5(4):15.
(1)李绍明先生2007年发表《略论中国人类学的华西学派》(《广西民族研究》2007年第3期)提出这一学术概念。两年后,李先生魂归故里,但追随的声音不绝如缕。2000年陈波出版《李安宅与华西学派人类学》(巴蜀书社),介绍了李安宅的人类学思想,但未对“华西学派”人类学的形成与发展做出阐述。2017年李锦组织申报国家社科基金重大招标项目《20世纪20-40年代人类学“华西学派”的学术体系研究》获准,笔者承担子课题《人类学“华西学派”的形成与发展》研究。
(2)实际上20世纪30-40年代边疆学术刊物较多,官方支持力度较大。因抗战建国特殊形势下,国民政府比较注重了解边情,但对谈论民族问题较为敏感。相对来说,边疆研究比民族研究更易获得官方认同。参见王利平、张原、汤芸,李绍明:《20世纪上半叶的中国边疆和边政研究---李绍明先生访谈录》,《西南民族大学学报》2009年第12期。
(3)参见陈某《关于李安宅与蒋匪帮的关系》,未刊稿,1968年11月10日。某学院革命委员会政治工作组盖章,11月13日。材料上有批注:陈某“系右派分子,所写材料供参考”。
(4)高伦举《社会学系》,《华大校刊》1949年4月30日文学院特刊,第13页。
(5)四川大学档案馆藏华西大学档案,编号:C.JX.CJD-312。转引自藏乃措《民国时期华西边疆研究所考述》,陕西师范大学硕士论文,2013年,第19-21页。
(6)高伦举《社会学系》,《华大校刊》1949年4月30日文学院特刊,第14页。
(7)即马林诺夫斯基(Bronislaw Kaspar Malinowski),1884-1942,英国社会人类学家,人类学功能学派的主要代表。
(8)即Margaret Mead(1901-1978),美国人类学家,研究社会化和童年培养,性角色本性及典型人格。
(9)即William Lloyd Warner(1898-1970),美国人类学家、社会学家,将人类学方法应用于当代社会问题,如城市、商业环境中的种族关系和阶级结构等。
(10)美国人类学家,又译查普尔、查普利、恰普勒。
(11)即赫斯科维茨(Melville J.Herskovits),1895-1963。
(12)美国人类学家,1870-1947,曾任纽约自然历史博物馆人类学部部长。
(13)即Charles A,Ellwood,美国社会学家,著有《社会哲学史》《文化进化论》。
(14)即拉德克利夫-布朗,英国社会人类学家,功能学派创始人之一。
(15)保罗·雷丁(1883-1959),美国人类学家、民俗学家。
(16)美国人类学家,也译克洛伊伯,著有《文化:概念和定义批判分析》。
(17)Franz Boas(1858-1942),现多译弗朗茨·博厄斯,或译法兰兹·鲍亚士,是德国裔美国人类学家,现代人类学的先驱之一,享有“美国人类学之父”的名号;也是语言学家,美国语言学研究的先驱。
(18)即爱德华·萨皮尔(Edward Sapir),1884-1939,美国人类学家,语言学家,著有《语言论》。
(19)即林顿(1884-1953),美国人类学家,心理学家。
(20)国立边疆文化教育馆简称“边教馆”,隶属教育部,掌理边疆文化之研究及发展事宜,下设研究组、编译组和文物组。民族学家凌纯声为首任馆长。
(21)又译哈勒威尔,美国心理人类学派的代表人物。
(22)美国人类学家雷德菲尔德(Robert.Redfield),1897-1958,美国人类学家,社会学家,著有《尤卡坦的民间文化》《小社区》《农民社会和文化》等。
(23)即Leslie Spier,1893-1961,美国人类学家。
(24)即宾西尔文尼亚。
(25)即威斯康辛。
(26)积极心理学创始人赛利格曼(Siligman)。
(27)J.F.恩布里(J.F.Embree):《须砺村:一个日本村庄》(Sure Mura,A Japanese Village,U-niversity of Chicago Press,1939.
(28)疑有误。科斯敏斯基(1886-1959)苏联历史学家,专治世界中世纪史,著有《十三世纪的英国农村》《十三世纪英国土地史研究》《中世纪史学史,五至十九世纪》等。
(29)本书通俗地介绍了美国描写语言学的基本理论和分析方法,作者为(美)B.布洛赫(Bernard Bloch),(美)G.L.特雷杰(George L.Trager)。
(30)科拉·杜依波丝(C.Du Bois)在印尼附近的阿罗岛进行田野调查后,于1944年出版了《阿罗岛人》(The People of Alor:University of Minnesota Press.,l 944),他的研究重点是儿童教养方式和人格的关系。他提出了一个新概念“众趋人格结构”(Model personality structure),来说明族群人格。
(31)即刘易斯·芒福德,美国社会哲学家,著有《枝条与石头》《科技与文明》《生存的价值》。
(32)戈尔维奇(G.Gurvitch,1894-1965)系法国社会学家,曾任国际社会学学会主席,著有《法律社会学》《社会学与辩证法》等著作。
(33)即基德(A.V.Kidder),美国现代考古学的奠基人之一。