作者：何星亮主编、周泓执行主编
出版社：社会科学文献出版社
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
宗教信仰与民族文化(第九辑)试读：
总序
郝时远中国社会科学院民族学与人类学研究所是一个多学科、综合性的研究机构。从学科的设置和专业方向来看，包括了马克思主义研究、历史学、语言学、民族学、社会文化人类学、经济学、宗教学、文献学、政治学、法学、国际关系、影视人类学、民俗学、古文字学等，还包括蒙古学、藏学、突厥学等专门的学科。这些学科和专业方向的多样化构成了研究所的多学科、综合性特点，而这些学科的研究对象则是人类社会民族现象及其发展规律，着重于对不同历史阶段和不同含义的民族共同体（people、ethnos、nationality、nation、ethnic group）及其互动关系的研究，显示了研究所诸多学科的共同指向。研究所以民族学和人类学冠名的目的是为多学科建构一个共同的学术平台，在研究对象统一性的基础上实现多学科的互补与整合，在多学科的视野中建立综合性研究优势，增强中国民族学和人类学的学科性发展。
人类社会的民族现象及其所伴生的民族问题，是人类社会最普遍、最复杂、最长久，也是最重要的话题之一。中国是世界上古代文明延续不断的东方国度，也是统一的多民族国家。在数千年的发展进程中，多民族的互动关系不仅是历朝各代最突出的社会现象之一，而且也是统一的多民族国家形成和不断发展的重要动能。因此，中国几千年来的民族现象和各民族的互动关系，为我们解读人类社会的民族现象及其规律性运动提供了一个相当完整的古代模式。《礼记·王制》中说：
凡居民材，必因天地寒暖燥湿，广谷大川异制，民生其间者异俗；刚柔、轻重、迟速异齐，五味异和，器械异制，衣服异宜。修其教不易其俗，齐其政不易其宜。中国戎夷，五方之民，皆有性也，不可推移。东方曰夷，被发文身，有不火食者矣；南方曰蛮，雕题交趾，有不火食者矣；西方曰戎，被发衣皮，有不粒食者矣；北方曰狄，衣羽毛穴居，有不粒食者矣；中国、夷、蛮、戎、狄，皆有安居、和味、宜服、利用、背器；五方之民，言语不通，嗜欲不同；达其志、通其欲，东方曰寄，南方曰象，西方曰狄，北方曰译。
这就是中国先秦文献中所记载的“五方之民”说，可谓中国最早具有民族志意义的记录。它所提示的内涵，对我们今天认识和理解民族现象也是启迪颇多的。例如，构成民族特征的文化差异的自然基础是生态环境，即在“天地寒暖燥湿”“广谷大川”等不同生态环境中生存的人类群体“皆随地以资其生”所表现的“异俗”，“五方之民”在民居、饮食、服饰、工具、器物等方面的“异制”，不同的语言、不同的价值观念及其相互沟通的中介（翻译）等。其中也包括了处理“五方之民”互动关系的古代政治智慧，即“修其教不易其俗，齐其政不易其宜”。可以说，中国是一个有民族学传统且民族学资源十分丰富的国家。
古往今来，时过境迁，今天的中国已经自立于世界民族之林，正在为实现中华民族的伟大复兴而推进中国特色社会主义现代化进程。这一进程正在展示现代民族进程的发展前景，它同样会对现代人类社会的民族现象及其发展前景提供一种范式，也就是中国解决民族问题的成功例证。当然，我国正处于社会主义初级阶段的发展进程中，在解决民族问题方面，我们不仅面对着中国56个民族共同发展繁荣的历史重任，而且也面对着全球化时代多民族的大千世界。无论是内政治理，还是融入国际社会，广义的民族问题仍旧是我们需要高度重视的课题。当代中国民族问题的基本特征和普遍反应是经济文化的发展问题，这是由当代中国社会所处的发展阶段及其基本矛盾所决定的。同时，我们也面对着一些棘手的问题，如“台独”问题、达赖集团问题、“东突”分裂势力和国际恐怖主义问题，以及世界范围和周边国家民族问题的交互影响。这两个方面的问题为我们提出了责无旁贷的研究任务。履行这一职责需要我们付出多方面的艰辛努力，其中学科建设是最重要的保障。
科学化是学科建设题中之义，任何一门学科只能在科学化的过程中实现发展。中国的学术传统源远流长，也形成了诸多学科性的研究领域。近代以来，随着西学东渐，中国的学术事业在不断吸收西方科学规范的过程中逐步形成了现代学科的分化，其中民族学、人类学也取得了很大程度的发展。自20世纪70年代末中国改革开放以来，中国的哲学社会科学事业在与世界学术领域交流互动的过程中取得了新的发展和显著的成就，哲学社会科学在认识世界、传承文明、创新理论、资政育人、服务社会等方面的不可替代作用，得到了党和国家的充分肯定。但是，能否充分地发挥哲学社会科学各学科的这种作用，涉及诸多因素，而学科建设所包含的指导思想、基本概念和范畴、学科理论、研究方法和学术规范等方面的内容是具有重要意义的。体现这些基本要素的研究成果，不仅对推进学科建设至关重要，而且也是繁荣发展哲学社会科学事业不可或缺的内在条件。中国社会科学院重点学科建设工程的启动，是进一步繁荣发展哲学社会科学事业的重要举措。我所推出的中国社会科学院重点学科·民族学人类学系列是贯彻落实这一重要举措所做出的一种尝试。
如上所述，我研究所是一个多学科、综合性的研究机构，经过学科调整和研究室重组，研究所内的大部分学科都纳入了重点学科建设工程，如民族理论、民族历史、民族语言、语音学和计算语言学、民族学（社会文化人类学）、世界民族和诸多专业方向。因此，这套丛书的出版及其所关涉的研究内容也体现了多学科的特点。这套丛书根据基础研究和应用研究并重的学科建设要求，或以学科或以专题形式反映我研究所科研人员新近的研究成果。根据中国社会科学院重点学科建设工程协议的要求，在今后几年中，我研究所列入工程范围的学科和专业方向将完成一系列具有重要理论价值和现实意义的研究课题，而这套丛书则主要反映这一过程中的阶段性学术成果。
2003年，我国获得了2008年国际人类学民族学世界大会的举办权，这对中国的民族学和人类学以及广义的民族研究事业来说是一次重大的发展机遇，也是与来自世界各国的民族学家、人类学家进行广泛对话和空前交流的机会，同时这也意味着是一次挑战。我们不仅需要展现中国各民族的现代发展成就，而且需要在民族学、人类学研究方面推出一批又一批引人注目的高水平研究成果。因此，加强民族学、人类学的学科建设，整合传统民族研究的学科性资源，做好充分的学术准备，是今后几年我国民族学、人类学界的重要任务。从这个意义上说，这套丛书的陆续出版，在一定程度上也将体现我研究所为迎接这次世界大会所进行的学术准备。
在此，我们非常感谢社会科学文献出版社对这套丛书的出版给予的大力支持和真诚帮助，也期待着广大读者给予关注和指正。2004年6月
Foreword
Hao ShiyuanThe Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is a multi-disciplinary and comprehensive research institution. In terms of disciplinary arrangement，the institute covers Marxist studies，history，linguistics，ethnology，socio-cultural anthropology，economics，religion，historical records，politics，law，international relations，video anthropology，folklore，and ancient scripts，as well as some special learning like Mongol studies，Tibetology and Turk studies. The disciplinary diversification forms the multi-disciplinary，comprehensive feature of the institute. All these disciplines have one thing in common，that is，they all study minzu （a general word in Chinese for people，ethnos，nationality，nation and ethnic group） phenomenon and their evolutionary law in the human society，with the emphasis on minzu communities in different historical stages and with different meanings，as well as on the interaction between various minzus. The institute is named with the term of ethnology and anthropology for the purpose to build a common academic platform for all disciplines it involves，to realize the mutual complementarity and integration of all the disciplines，to form the advantage of the comprehensive studies，and to foster the development of ethnology and anthropology in China.
The minzu phenomenon and the problems resulted from the phenomenon have been among the most widespread，most complicated，most prolonged and most important subjects in the human society. China is an Oriental country with ancient civilization that never discontinued. Also，it is a unitary country with ethnic plurality. In the course of several thousand years，the ethnic interaction was not only a social highlight in each historical dynasty，but also a motivator for the formation and continuous development of a unitary country with ethnic plurality. So，the minzu phenomenon and ethnic interaction in China’s long history of several thousand years provide us with a full ancient model for understanding the minzu phenomenon and their law in the human society.
In China’s Pre-Qin historical literature，there is a term of “wu fang zhi min”，literally，five-direction peoples. It comes from the following paragraph：
The material used for shelter must vary with different climate，cold or warm，dry or moist，and with different topography，such as wide valley or large river. And people living in different environment have different customs. They may have different character，behaving way，dieting habit，instruments and clothes. It is proper to civilize the people without changing their customs and to improve their administrative system without changing those suitable to them. Wu fang zhi min （people inhabiting in five directions），either in middle plain or in frontier，all have their own character，which can not be transformed. People in the east，known as Yi，grow long hair hanging down over the neck and have tattoos，and some of them have their food without cooking. People in the south，known as Man，tattoo their foreheads and cross their feet when sleeping，and some of them have their food without cooking. People in the west，known as Rong，grow long hair hanging down over the neck and wear pelt，and some of them do not have grain as their food. People in the north，known as Di，wear feather and live in caves，and some of them do not have grain as their food. Both people in middle plain and the Yi，Man，Rong and Di have their own shelter，diet，dress，instruments and carriers. The people in five directions can not understand each other and may have different desires. The way to make each other’s ideas and desires understood is called ji in the east，xiang in the south，didi in the west and yi in the north. （cited from Liji，an ancient Chinese book.）
This may be regarded as the earliest record with ethnographical sense in China.
The citation suggests a lot for us to understand today’s minzu phenomenon. For one thing，the cultural difference that usually constitutes the ethnic feature has its natural foundation in ecological environment. Human groups living in different ecological environment，like different climate （cold or warm，dry or moist） and topography（wide valley or large river），all depend upon their local resources and thus may have different customs. As mentioned above，the people in five directions varied in shelter，diet，dress and instrument，and people speaking different languages with different values can be communicated only through the medium of translation. Also，here is displayed the ancient political wisdom to deal with the relations of the people in five directions，namely，to civilize the people without changing their customs and to improve their administrative system without changing those suitable to them. So it shows that China is a country with ethnological tradition and rich ethnographical resources.
Now，old time has passed and the situation has been changed. Today，as an independent member of the international community，China is promoting the modernization with Chinese characteristics in order to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. This development has revealed the prospect of the modern minzu process. And at the same time，it will also provide a pattern，that is，the successful example in which China deals with the minzu problem，for the minzu phenomenon and their evolution of the human society in the modern time. Of course，China still remains at the initial stage of socialism. So far as the minzu problem is concerned，we are now faced with not only the historical task of common development and prosperity for the 56 nationalities in China，but also the ethnically plural，complicated world in the time of globalization.
The ethnic problem in broad sense still remains to be a subject to which we should pay much attention，either in the management of internal affairs or in the merging to the international community. In contemporary China，the fundamental feature of or the widespread response to the ethnic problem is how to promote the economic and cultural development. This is determined by the current developmental stage as well as the fundamental contradiction of the contemporary Chinese society. At the same time，we are confronted with certain difficult problems，such as Taiwan’s attempt for “independence”，the problem of the Dalai clique，the issue of “East Turkistan”，the international terrorism，as well as the influence of ethnic problems both in our neighboring countries and all over the world in general. The problems in the two larger respects put forth our duty-bound tasks for research. To perform this duty，we should make our efforts in many aspects，among which，disciplinary construction serves as the most important guarantee.
Disciplinary construction calls for scientific spirit，only with which can a discipline realize its development. China has its academic traditions of long standing，and a number of academic domains developed in the history. Since the influence of the Western learning went eastward，Western norm of science has been introduced and the disciplinary division in modern sense gradually came into being in China. And it is just in this process that ethnology and anthropology acquired development to large extent. Since the late 1970s when China began to take reforms and open up to the outside world，new development and remarkable achievement have been made in China’s philosophy and social sciences through the exchange with foreign academia. The Party and the State highly appreciate the irreplaceable role of philosophy and social sciences in understanding the world，passing on civilization，innovating the theory，consulting for government and educating the young，and serving for the society.
However，the full play of the role of philosophy and social sciences involves many factors. And in this respect，disciplinary construction is of importance，such as in the guiding thought，fundamental concepts and categories，disciplinary theories，research methods and academic norm. The research achievements that represent these fundamental factors will not only be of vital importance in promotion of disciplinary construction，but also make up the indispensable inherent conditions for prospering and fostering philosophy and social sciences. The launch of the construction project for prior disciplines at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is a significant move for further prospering and fostering philosophy and social sciences. And the Series of the Construction Project for Prior Disciplines at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences our institute has put out is just an attempt to carry out the significant move.
As mentioned above，our institute is a multi-disciplinary and comprehensive research institution. Since the discipline adjustment and research department restructuring，most disciplines in the institute，such as ethnic theory，ethnic history，ethnic linguistics，phonetics and computational linguistics，ethnology（socio-cultural anthropology） and world ethnic-national studies，have been brought into the construction project for prior disciplines. So，the series and the content involved reflect the feature of multi-disciplines，too. Placing emphasis both on basic and applied studies，the series reflects recent research achievements either in the unit of a discipline or in a special topic. In accordance with the requirement from the agreement on the construction project for prior disciplines at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences，our institute will complete in the next few years a series of research projects both with important theoretical value and actual significance. So，the series mainly reflects the academic products at the current phase.
In 2003，China succeeded in bidding for the host for the 2008 Conference of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences （IUAES）. This will be a significant developmental opportunity，not only to China’s ethnology and anthropology，but to ethno-national studies in general as well. Also，it will be an opportunity of widespread dialogue and unprecedented exchange with ethnologists and anthropologists from various countries in the world. At the same time，however，it means a challenge. We need to exhibit the developmental achievements of the nationalities in China，and moreover，we need to exhibit plenty of striking research achievements with a high level. Therefore，it will be the important task of China’s ethnology and anthropology in the next few years to strengthen the disciplinary construction，integrate the disciplinary resources of traditional ethno-national studies，and make full academic preparation. In this sense，the publication of the series in succession can be regarded to some extent as the academic preparation made by our institute for the coming congress of IUAES.
Finally，we appreciate very much the vigorous support and sincere assistance of the Social Sciences Literature Press to the publication of the series. And we also expect the attention and criticism from the readers.June 2004
理论篇
Blank Spots in Collective Memory：A Case Study of Russia
[1]James V.WertschAbstract：The dynamics of collective remembering are examined by analyzing what happens when a “blank spot” in history is filled with information that had previously not been available or publicly acknowledged. Taking Russian accounts of the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 as a case study，it is argued that “schematic narrative templates” that shape deep collec-tive memory give rise to a tendency to maintain this memory and help it overcome the “narrative rift” that occurs when embarrassing episodes from the past are publicly acknowledged.Schematic narrative templates are set forth as underlying strong conservative forces that resist change in collective memory at a deep level.It is suggested that debates grounded in formal history may help overcome this resistance to change but that such efforts will be limited as long as the forces of deep collective memory are not recognized.
Keywords：Collective Memory National Narrative Russia Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
The Soviet Union was well known for treating certain episodes and personalities in its history as “blank spots.” In some cases，these were literally blank，as in photos where people’s images had been painstakingly airbrushed out of existence（King，1997）；in other instances，the notion was more figurative，having to do with what could—and could not—be discussed in a public setting. Regardless of their form，these blank spots were understood by Soviet citizens as involving something that could not be mentioned—even when they dealt with someone who had been at the center of public discourse just the day before. During the last few decades of the Soviet Union’s existence，these blank spots in history became the object of increasing debate and protest，at least in private settings. Indeed，some people thought，perhaps naively，that if these blank spots could only be publicly acknowledged and filled with accurate information，truth would then replace falsehood and omission once and for all.
For many people living in the Baltic region of the former Soviet Union，the most obvious blank spot in history was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. For decades there had been little doubt in their minds that this infamous pact included secret protocols that lay behind the forced annexation of Estonia，Latvia，and Lithuania by Soviet forces in 1940. However，the existence of these protocols was officially denied by Soviet leaders，including Mikhail Gorbachev，up until the final years of the USSR’s existence. While enjoined from discussing this matter in public，many Estonians，Latvians，and Lithuanians were insistent，at least in private，that this was an episode of forced annexation and violence，the memory of which would not be lost，and the true story of which would eventually come out.
In what follows，I shall examine Russian accounts of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In particular，I shall be concerned with the pact’s secret protocols in which Hitler and Stalin agreed to carve up Eastern Europe，and I shall argue that in post-Soviet Russia，the transformation of the memory of this pact did not occur in a single step yielding a final，fixed account. Instead，it involved a process of change that has undergone two stages，and this change has given rise to an account that is clearly not what the people of the Baltic countries remember. I shall also argue that to account for the dynamics of this transformation it is useful to invoke the notions of “schematic narrative templates” and “deep collective memory.”
I base my analysis on an examination of high school history textbooks from Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. As I have noted elsewhere（Wertsch，2002），text-books are only one reflection of a wider set of cultural and political processes involved in defining official history，and as such they compete with other sources of information，like film and the popular press，for impact on young generations. They provide a good starting point，however，for examining official，state-sanctioned accounts of the past.
The first question to pose about these accounts is whether they really are about history，at least history in any strict sense of the term. Instead of speaking of blank spots in history，it will become obvious that it may be more appropriate to speak of blank spots in collective memory. In reality，“history” instruction in Soviet and post-Soviet schools—as well as in virtually every other country in the world—involves a complex mixture of what professional historians would consider to be a sound interpretation of past events based on the objective，balanced review of evidence on one hand，and an effort，on the other，to promulgate collective memory，or a usable past，as part of a national identity project. In this context，notions of history and collective memory clearly overlap. Both ways of representing the past deal with events occurring before the lifetime of the people doing the representing，and in both cases there is the assumption that the accounts being presented are true. Furthermore，both rely on narratives as “cultural tools”（Wertsch，1998）. The upshot is that it is often difficult to separate history from collective memory，and what we routinely call “history” textbooks almost always involve a mixture of the two.
This，however，does not mean that no useful distinction can be made between history and collective memory. Indeed，it is essential to distinguish between them. The father of modern collective memory studies，Maurice Halbwachs（1980，1992） made this point in the 1920s in his discussion of “formal history” and how it differs from collective memory. Before Halbwachs’ time it came up in other discussions；for example，it was an object of debate in the nineteenth century in writings by the philosopher Ernest Renan（1882/1990），who viewed serious historical research as often posing a threat to popular efforts at collective remembering.
In contemporary debates，this discussion has continued in historiography，where history and collective memory are often viewed not just as different，but as being in basic conflict. The reason for this is the different aspirations of the two modes of relating to the past. For its part，history aspires to provide an objective and distanced（i.e.，non-“presentist”） account of the past，even if this means giving up favored and often self-serving narratives. In contrast，collective remembering inevitably involves some identity project in the present—remembering in the service of constructing a preferred image of a group—and is resistant to change even in the face of contradictory evidence. As Assmann（1997，9） noted，in collective remembering “the past is not simply ‘received’ by the present. The present is ‘haunted’ by the past and the past is modeled，invented，reinvented，and reconstructed by the present.”
In short，formal history and collective memory must be kept distinct for several reasons. Collective memory tends to reflect a single，subjective，committed per-spective of a group in the present，whereas formal history strives to be objective and to distance itself from the present and any particular perspective currently in favor. In addition，collective memory leaves little room for doubt or ambiguity about events and the motivations of actors（Novick，1999），whereas formal history strives to take into account multiple，complex factors and motives that shape events.
A final property that characterizes collective remembering is that it tends to be heavily shaped by “schemata”（Bartlett，1932/1995），“implicit theories”（Ross 1989），or other simplifying organizational frameworks. To be sure，such frameworks also shape formal history，but in the case of collective memory they take on a particu-larly important role，meaning that accounts of the past often are quite schematic and include little in the way of detailed information，especially information that conflicts with the basic narrative that supports an identity project. In collective remembering，such conflicting evidence is often distorted，simplified，and ignored.
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]