過去十年中，儒家正逐步復(fù)興。關(guān)于儒家的書籍成為暢銷書，政府官員的講話中也常常傳遞“和諧”等傳統(tǒng)儒家理念。不過，有一個(gè)領(lǐng)域中的復(fù)蘇可能不那么為人所知——中國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)研究界對(duì)這一現(xiàn)象也越來越關(guān)注。

　　彭凱平、吳沙莉等心理學(xué)者設(shè)計(jì)的心理學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)顯示出中國(guó)人與美國(guó)人之間存在著明顯的認(rèn)知差異，中國(guó)人更傾向于考慮整體情境，采用辯證的方式解決問題；
來自臺(tái)灣、香港的心理學(xué)家黃光國(guó)、楊中芳將“關(guān)系主義”、“中庸思想”等傳統(tǒng)價(jià)值理念引入了心理學(xué)研究。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家盛洪認(rèn)為在中國(guó)把“家庭”作為理性分析的單位要優(yōu)于“個(gè)人”，并且試圖研究“孝道”等觀念的經(jīng)濟(jì)效應(yīng)。研究醫(yī)學(xué)倫理的范瑞平探討過以家庭為基礎(chǔ)的醫(yī)療決策行為。企業(yè)文化咨詢專家黃偉東研究了儒家文化對(duì)商業(yè)實(shí)踐的影響。

　　史天健、朱云漢、張佑宗等政治學(xué)者關(guān)于政治價(jià)值觀的調(diào)查研究顯示，隨著中國(guó)逐步現(xiàn)代化，人們?cè)絹碓秸J(rèn)同儒家理念。關(guān)注政治發(fā)展、社會(huì)問題的康曉光、彼游塞在調(diào)查研究中，發(fā)現(xiàn)了許多致力于弘揚(yáng)儒家文化的個(gè)人和團(tuán)體，包括在官方教育系統(tǒng)中傳播教育儒家文化的老師、學(xué)校等等。國(guó)際關(guān)系問題專家閻學(xué)通、徐進(jìn)等人從先秦時(shí)代的孟子、荀子思想中尋找外交政策的理念。哲學(xué)家蔣慶、陳來、白彤東、陳明研究了古代儒家思想對(duì)中國(guó)的政治發(fā)展、社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型的影響和意義。王瑞昌討論了儒家“以人為本”的執(zhí)政理念。

　　已有對(duì)儒家的學(xué)術(shù)研究總是囿于西方舶來的學(xué)術(shù)分科限制。2009年6月，在中國(guó)人民大學(xué)舉行的“現(xiàn)代中國(guó)情境中的傳統(tǒng)價(jià)值觀：多學(xué)科的解讀與構(gòu)建”研討會(huì)，突破了這一限制。研討會(huì)由史天健、貝淡寧、康曉光、彭凱平四位教授共同發(fā)起，卡內(nèi)基國(guó)際和平基金會(huì)資助，中國(guó)人民大學(xué)非營(yíng)利組織研究所主辦。對(duì)儒家文化感興趣，但是來自不同領(lǐng)域的學(xué)者們坐在一起，共同探討他們能從其他學(xué)科中學(xué)到什么。

　　哲學(xué)家陳來指出，測(cè)量儒家價(jià)值觀非常的復(fù)雜和困難，需要追溯價(jià)值理念在經(jīng)典名著中的含義，歷史演變過程，在現(xiàn)代生活中的體現(xiàn)。更多的學(xué)者表示，這樣的研究非常有意義，因?yàn)槿鍖W(xué)對(duì)于理解當(dāng)代中國(guó)社會(huì)，以及更長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型和政治發(fā)展非常重要。

　　有人或許會(huì)認(rèn)為，來自不同領(lǐng)域的學(xué)者會(huì)存在非常大的分歧。首先，各自的立場(chǎng)就很不同。大多數(shù)學(xué)者公開承認(rèn)，他們信仰和同情儒家價(jià)值觀，有著同一的立場(chǎng)，就像自由主義的思想者試圖推廣自由的價(jià)值一樣；
有的宣稱他們對(duì)儒家價(jià)值觀是進(jìn)行純科學(xué)的研究和測(cè)量；
有的兩者兼具，特別是康曉光，既倡導(dǎo)儒家政治理念，又采用社會(huì)科學(xué)的方法對(duì)其進(jìn)行研究。

　　參會(huì)者們也提出儒家有些方面不能從其他學(xué)科視角來研究。比如儒者蔣慶指出，像“天”、“良知”等就不能作為社會(huì)科學(xué)經(jīng)驗(yàn)研究的對(duì)象。楊汝清也指出道德養(yǎng)成是長(zhǎng)時(shí)期的，不能在實(shí)驗(yàn)室里控制各種條件來進(jìn)行測(cè)量。

　　但是研討會(huì)還是朝著多學(xué)科合作的方向努力，并且得出來了一些富有成效的提議。參會(huì)者們意識(shí)到了自己所在學(xué)科研究的不足有可能通過借鑒其他學(xué)科得到彌補(bǔ)。哲學(xué)家和歷史學(xué)家可以幫助優(yōu)化和改善政治價(jià)值觀調(diào)查問卷中設(shè)計(jì)的一些問題，比如經(jīng)典的儒家價(jià)值觀測(cè)量問題“小孩應(yīng)該順從其父母”，即便在儒家經(jīng)典中表述也不是絕對(duì)的，需要考慮不同的條件和情境。哲學(xué)家們也建議社會(huì)學(xué)者們研究一些不那么“知名”的儒家價(jià)值理念，比如“禮樂教化”，相信“人性本善”，對(duì)道德養(yǎng)成是否有正向影響？

　　社會(huì)科學(xué)家可以幫助哲學(xué)家知曉哪些儒家價(jià)值觀在現(xiàn)代社會(huì)還在發(fā)揮重要的作用。比如，“孝順”這一處理家庭倫理關(guān)系的理念，可以延展到家庭外成員，可通過縱向研究來考察。心理學(xué)家也能幫助識(shí)別背誦和記憶儒家經(jīng)典的最佳年齡階段。社會(huì)科學(xué)的方法還有助于研究如下問題：學(xué)習(xí)儒家經(jīng)典，是否真正使得統(tǒng)治者更加“仁愛”，“賢明”，其行政效率是否更高？人們的道德水平是否會(huì)隨著年齡增長(zhǎng)而提高，比如德高望重？

　　社會(huì)科學(xué)家們的研究還能夠幫助哲學(xué)家們明晰什么樣的儒家價(jià)值理念是儒家傳統(tǒng)社會(huì)所特有的？什么樣的儒家價(jià)值理念是可以普世的？比如一些研究實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果顯示，中國(guó)人更多的具有集體主義取向，這意味著將此類價(jià)值觀向海外推廣時(shí)會(huì)遇到很大阻力。（正如向中國(guó)推行高度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的政黨政治將遇到重重阻礙一樣）。閻學(xué)通指出，如果中國(guó)政府自身不實(shí)踐儒家執(zhí)政理念，卻試圖向國(guó)外推廣，只會(huì)適得其反。

　　誠(chéng)然，這些問題都還沒有答案。但不言而喻，如果擁有言論自由，出版自由，足夠的資金支持，學(xué)者們多渠道多側(cè)面的研究這些問題，將獲得更豐碩的成果。在恰當(dāng)?shù)沫h(huán)境和條件下，現(xiàn)今仍被西方學(xué)術(shù)界忽視的關(guān)于中國(guó)的課題，特別是中國(guó)人價(jià)值觀的研究，將成為全球知識(shí)界關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)。

　　作者：貝淡寧，清華大學(xué)哲學(xué)系教授，最新作品《中國(guó)新儒學(xué)：轉(zhuǎn)型社會(huì)中的政治與日常生活》，普林斯頓大學(xué)出版社2008年出版。

　　翻譯：劉詩(shī)林，中國(guó)人民大學(xué)博士生

　　　　原文

　　　　Confucianism in Chinese Academia

　　　　Over the last decade or so, there has been a revival of Confucianism. Popular books on Confucianism are best sellers, and official discourse from the government often expresses traditional Confucian values like harmony. What is less well known, however, is the resurgence in interest among academics in China.

　　　　Rigorous experiments by psychologists such as Peng Kaiping and Wu Shali show that there are striking cognitive differences between Chinese and Americans, with Chinese more likely to use contextual and dialectical approaches to solving problems. Psychologists Huang Guangguo and Yang Zhongfang from Taiwan and Hongkong advocate the use of traditional Chinese ideas like the “relationism” (guanxizhuyi) and “middle way” [zhongyong zhi dao] for psychological research. Economists such as Shen Hong take the family as the relevant unit of economic analysis and try to measure the economic effect of such values as filial piety. Theorists of medical ethics such as Fan Ruiping discuss the importance of family-based decision making in medical settings. Those working in the field of business ethics like Huang Weidong research the influence of Confucian values on business practices in China.

　　　　Political surveys by political scientists like Shi Tianjian, Chu Yunhan and Zhang Youzong show that attachment to Confucian values has increased during the same period that China has modernized. Sociologists such as Kang Xiaoguang and Sebastien Billioud study the thousands of experiments in education and social living in China that are inspired by Confucian values.

　　　　Theorists of international relations such as Yan Xuetong and Xu Jin look to pre-Qin thinkers like Mengzi and Xunzi for foreign policy ideas. And philosophers such as Jiang Qing, Chen Lai, Bai Tongdong, and Chen Ming, draw upon the ideas of great Confucian thinkers of the past for thinking about social and political reform in China. Wang Richang discusses the Confucian foundations of government slogans like “yi ren wei ben” (“the people as the foundation”)

　　　　But academics doing research on Confucianism often work within rigid disciplinary boundaries borrowed from Western academia. At a ground-breaking conference Traditional Values in a Modern Chinese Context: An Interdisciplinary Approach held at Renmin University of China, June,2009. Leading academics working on Confucian values from different disciplines met to see what they could learn from each other. The conference was initiated by Professor Shi Tianjian, Daniel A.Bell, Kang Xiaoguang and Peng Kaiping, supported by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and organized by the Non-Profit-Research Center, Renmin University of China.

　　　　Chen Lai pointed to the complexity of measuring Confucian values, which would involve tracing their origin in classic texts, their historical development, as well as evidence of contemporary influence. But most participants still felt that the research was well worth doing, given the importance of Confucianism for understanding Chinese society and furthering social and political reform rooted in local conditions.(點(diǎn)擊此處閱讀下一頁(yè))

　　　　As one might expect, there were important areas of disagreement. For one thing, the starting points were often different. The majority sympathized with Confucian values and openly admitted that they begin with normative standpoints, just as liberal thinkers try to promote liberal values. Some claimed that they are doing purely scientific work measuring Confucian values. And some do both: most notably, Kang Xiaoguang both promotes political Confucianism and studies its development in Chinese society.

　　　　The participants also identified areas of study that could not be researched fruitfully from other perspectives. Philosophers like Jiang Qing pointed to values like tian and liangzhi that could not be studied by the empirically-minded social sciences, and Confucian educators like Yang Ruqin argued that moral growth is long term and could not be measured in controlled laboratory studies.

　　　　But the workshop also led to some fruitful proposals for cross-disciplinary research. The participants noted areas of weakness in their own disciplines that could be usefully addressed from other perspectives. Philosophers and historians could help to refine the questions posed in political attitude surveys. For example, the “Confucian” attitude measured by political scientists that children should blindly obey their parents should be made more conditional if the aim is to measure attachment to Confucian values rooted in classic texts. Philosophers might also suggest questions for research inspired by less well-known Confucian values, such as the idea that listening to different types of music or believing in different views of human nature (性善vs性惡) have different moral consequences during the course of one’s life.

　　　　Social scientists, for their part, can help philosophers determine which Confucian values are most effective in contemporary society. For example, the claims that filial piety provides the psychological basis for extending morality to non-family members could be researched by means of longitudinal studies. Psychologists could also identify the key ages that best allow for the memorization of classical texts. Social scientists could also help to study whether morality normally improves with age and whether learning the Confucian classics really does make rulers more morally sensitive and politically effective..

　　　　The findings of social scientists might also help Confucian philosophers to determine which Confucian values are particular to societies with a Confucian heritage and which ones might be universalized. For example, the finding that collectivist attitudes are more typical of Chinese subjects in experimental settings means that there will likely be resistance to promoting those values abroad (just as there would be resistance to promoting highly adversarial and interest-based politics in China). Yan Xuetong pointed out that Confucianism won’t be taken seriously abroad unless it is practiced by political leaders at home.

　　　　These research questions remain open. What is clear, however, is that academics need the freedom to discuss and publish their ideas and adequate funding to carry out research in order to pursue these questions in fruitful ways. Under the right conditions, China could well develop into a leading center of global learning, with academics researching questions and values hitherto neglected in the West.

　　　　Daniel A. Bell is professor, department of philosophy, Tsinghua University. His latest book is China’s New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton University Press, 2008).

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：儒家 學(xué)術(shù)研究 中國(guó) 價(jià)值觀 關(guān)注