斯考切波（1985）回击Sewell：国家权力的革命性重建主导的文化习语和政治意识形态

文 / 李立 Li-ChinHsien

Skocpol (1985). Cultural Idioms and Political Ideologies in the Revolutionary Reconstruction of State Power: A Rejoinder to Sewell. The Journal of Modern History 57 (1): 86–94.

He rightly points out that I treated the issues too cursorily andrelied upon a notion of ideologies as deliberate blueprints for change that leaves untouched many of the ways in which ideas may affect the course of revolutions. Sewell offers instead "a much more robust conception of ideology . . . that treats ideology as anonymous, collective, and constitutive of social order."

” 他(Sewell)正确地指出，我过分地对待问题，并依靠意识形态的概念作为蓄意变革的蓝图，而这并未影响思想影响革命进程的许多方式。相反， Sewell 提供了 “ 一种更强大的意识形态概念 …… 将意识形态视为匿名的、集体的和本构的社会秩序。 ”

but I want to register profound reservations about the use of anthropological conceptions of cultural systems in analyzing the contributions made by cultural idioms and ideological activities to revolutionary transformations.

我当然同意塞厄尔的观点，即文化是 “ 超个人的 ” ，但是我想对文化系统的人类学概念在分析文化习语和意识形态活动对革命性转型所做的贡献时做深刻的保留意见。

A NONINTENTIONALIST AND STATE-CENTERED APPROACH TO REVOLUTIONS

"Nonintentionalist at the macroscopic level" might havebeen a better way to label my approach.

“ 宏观上的非故意主义者 ” 可能是标记我的方法的更好方法。

理解：重点仅在于，没有一个行动团体，无论是阶级还是意识形态的 vanguard （先锋队），都故意地塑造了造成革命性危机和结果的复杂和多重决定性冲突（ multiplydetermined conflicts ）。法国大革命不是由崛起的资产阶级资产阶级或雅各宾派发动的。俄国革命不是由工业无产阶级甚至是布尔什维克发起的。

Rather than seeking to ground the causes of social revolutions andtheir outcomes in hypostatized interests or outlooks , States and Social Revolutions focused on "structures," or patterned relationships beyond the manipulative control of any single group or individual.

《国家和社会革命》并没有试图以低估的利益或观点为基础来探讨社会革命的根源，而没有将其置于基础之上，而是着眼于 “ 结构 ” 或超出任何单个团体或个人的操纵控制范围的有条理的关系。 这种以历史具体方式理解的社会结构，为我们提供了在革命中发挥作用的群体之间冲突的关键，其产生的结果超出了任何单一参与者的意图 。 但是，当然，社会结构（例如，地主与农民之间的关系或约束君主和行政官员的关系）本身并不是参与者。

They are, as Sewell rightly says, both enabling and constraining, and they are produced and reproduced only through the conscious action of the concrete groups and individuals that relate to one another in the relevant patterned ways.

社会结构既是使能又是约束，它们只有通过以相关的有规律的方式相互联系的具体群体和个人的有意识行动才能产生和复制。

Since the historical case studies of States and Social Revolutions are replete with groups acting for material, ideal, and power goals, it shouldbe apparent that I never meant to read intentional group action out ofrevolutions-only to situate it theoretically for the explanatory purposes athand.

由于《国家和社会革命》的历史案例研究中充斥着为物质，理想和权力目标而行的团体，所以很明显，我从来没有打算从革命中读过故意的团体行动， 而只是出于理论上的解释目的。

I argued, are not the only or the basic "structural" key sto revolutionary causes or outcomes. Analysts need to focus more directly onthe international relationships of states to one another, and on the relationships of old-regime rulers and revolutionary state builders to dominantand subordinate classes. Class conflicts as such, especially conflicts pitting peasants against landlords and existing agrarian property relations, certainlyentered into the processes of revolution in France, Russia, and China.

我认为，阶级结构和冲突不是革命性原因或结果的唯一或基本的 “ 结构性 ” 关键。分析者需要更直接地关注国家之间的国际关系，以及旧政权统治者和革命国家建设者与统治阶级和下属阶级的关系。这样的阶级冲突，特别是农民与地主的争夺以及现有的土地所有权关系，无疑在法国、俄罗斯和中国进入了革命进程。

But one must constantly focus on the direct and indirect interactions of class struggles with the primary conflicts in these revolutions-the conflicts surrounding the breakdown of the administrative and coercive organizations of the old-regime monarchical states, and the subsequent, often highly protracted conflicts over the kinds of new state organizations that would be successfully consolidated in the place of the pre-revolutionary regimes.

但是，人们必须更为不断关注阶级斗争与这些革命中的主要冲突的直接和间接相互作用 - 围绕旧政权的君主制国家的行政和强制组织的崩溃， 以及随之而来的， subsequent ， highly protracted 的冲突。可以取代革命前政权而成功整合的各种新的国家组织。 因此，在法国， 1789 年的农民起义既摆脱了君主专制主义的根源，又加速了其统治的瓦解。 实际上，从 1789 年到拿破仑时代，农村财产关系（实际上是革命法兰西）的所有财产关系都发生了合法的转变， 这不仅是根据阶级斗争的变幻莫测，而且还涉及到历届社会面临的需求，机会和制约因素。 寻求重建法国政体以及中央集权国家的行政和军事机构的一系列政治领导人。

REVOLUTIONS AS IDEOLOGICAL REMAKINGS OF THE WORLD

As a result, I did less than I might have done to rework inanalogous ways an alternative strand of theorizing about social revolutions-onethat sees them not as class conflicts but as ideologically inspired projects tore make social life in its entirety.

结果，我所做的工作比做类似（阶级分析）的工作要少得多，这是对社会革命进行理论化的另一种方式 - 将社会革命视为阶级冲突，而不是将其视为意识形态启动的项目，以对社会革命进行整体改造。

Sewell also understands the essence of revolution as an ideologically inspired attempt to remake all of socialand cultural life . Witness his description of the night of August 4,1789: "The representatives' rapture . . . [was] un derstandable: they wereparticipating in what seemed to them a regeneration of the world."

Sewell 还将革命的本质理解为一种受意识形态启发的重新塑造所有社会和文化生活的尝试。他对 1789 年 8 月 4 日晚上的描述是：“众议员的狂欢。在他们看来，这是一次世界的复兴，”西厄尔清楚地加入了他在这一观念中描述的历史行动者（ historical actors ）再生是形而上学的，也是制度性的， Sewell 认为，从 1789 年 8 月起，法国农民，一个显然没有被启蒙思想捆绑在一起的阶级，退出了法国大革命的故事，从此在 Sewell 的叙述中变成了“把启蒙形而上学的原则阐述成一个新的革命的社会和政治结构”，（ "the elaboration of Enlightenment metaphysical principles intoa new revolutionary social and political structure." ） To be sure, various factions and socialstrata, from the Constitutional Monarchists to the Girondins to the Jacobins tothe sans culottes, continue to contend. But they are simply elaboratingdifferent ideological variants from a shared set of revolutionary principles. 从君主立宪派到少女派、雅各宾派到无裙裤派，各个派系和社会阶层都在继续抗争。但他们只是从一套共同的革命原则中阐述了不同的意识形态变体。

启蒙运动与 corporate 君主制原则之间的紧张关系，从此“启蒙运动成为政府的主导用语，“创造”一个新的修辞和行动框架，以及一系列新的政治问题，这些问题主导着革命的后续发展。”

According to Sewell, what came to the fore in August 1789 was a new ideological idiom , a new set of principles ofdiscourse and action, under the aegis of which many contending groups thenproceeded to wage political struggles. In contrast to Walzer , Sewell's approach has the important advantage that we cantalk about contending and successive "ideological variants" developedby different groups of actors

据 Sewell 所说， 1789 年 8 月出现的是一个新的意识形态习语，一套新的话语和行动原则，在这些原则的支持下，许多敌对团体开始进行政治斗争。与沃尔泽不同的是，苏厄尔的方法有一个重要的优势，那就是我们可以谈论不同角色群体发展起来的竞争性和连续性的“意识形态变体”。

Sewell vs Walzer

与 Walzer 对这一观点的意向主义版本形成对比。 Sewell 并没有声称某个意识形态先锋队在 8 月 4 日控制了法国，并在那之后试图重塑法国。他的论据比 Walzer 的论据更“客观”、“匿名”、“集体”，因为沃尔泽的革命理论是如此彻底的意向主义，他被迫指定一个特定的群体作为每一次革命中改造世界的思想工程的载体。对于法国，他指定那些进行恐怖活动的雅各宾党人。

THE DISADVANTAGES OF AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF CULTURALSYSTEMS

But Sewell's approach also has important drawbacks, centering on theun convincing attempt he makes to portray August 1789 as the ideologically pivotal moment of the French Revolution.

但是， Sewell 的方法也有重要的缺点，集中在他试图把 1789 年 8 月描绘成法国大革命的意识形态关键时刻的令人信服的尝试上。

正如他所说，意识形态是“社会秩序的构成（ constitutive of socialorder ）”，“如果社会被理解为意识形态的构成”，那么“仅仅将意识形态视为解释革命所造成的某些变化的可能因果因素是不够的。”相反，“一种社会意识形态秩序被另一种社会意识形态秩序所取代”……成为变革的一个关键层面，需要“为任何特定的革命”作出解释。谁会这样思考文化意义？谁会将文化视为“社会秩序的构成”——这意味着将社会关系和与整体构想的社会世界有关的有意义的话语融合成一个概念？当然是人类学家。他们的实地工作经验和学科任务使这一概念具有一定的合理性。因为他们在相对较短的时间内沉浸在社会活动和陌生社区的谈论中，对文化系统的分析是他们做到这一点的方法。

Dangerous pitfalls lurk when students of complex, changing, highly stratified sociopolitical orders rely upon anthropological ideas about culturalsystems.7 It is all too easy to suppose the existence of integrated patterns ofshared meanings, total pictures of how society does and should work. Given the impossibility of face-to-face fieldwork contact with diverse societal groupsacting and arguing in real time, there is an inevitable temptation to readentire systems of meaning into particular documents. Most risky of all, one istempted to treat fundamental cultural and ideological change as the synchronousand complete replacement of one society-wide cultural system by another. Thus:on the night of August 4, corporate monarchical political culture was sweptfrom the field and the logic of the Enlightenment took over.

当复杂的、变化的、高度分层的社会政治秩序的学生依赖于人类学关于文化系统的观点时，危险的陷阱就潜伏了下来很容易想象出共同意义的存在模式，即 how society does and should work 的全部图景。鉴于面对面的实地调查是不可能的，与不同的社会团体进行实时的行动和争论，不可避免地要把整个意义系统阅读到最有风险的特定文本中去。 人们倾向于把根本性的文化和思想变革视为一个社会文化体系被另一个社会文化体系同步和完全的替代。 于是： 8 月 4 日晚， monarchical political culture 从场域中被扫清，启蒙的逻辑接踵而至。

TOWARD A MORE HISTORICALLY GROUNDED APPROACH

The influence of "the Enlightenment" on "the FrenchRevolution" is hardly a new historiographical topic.

“启蒙运动”对“法国大革命”的影响并不是一个新的史学话题。

Enlightenment-a transnational intellectual movement dealing withbasically metaphysical issues-with the French Revolution as a series of socialand political conflicts that occurred in only one of the many nations affectedby, and contributing to, the Enlightenment.

启蒙运动是一个跨国知识分子运动，主要处理形而上学的问题，法国大革命是一系列社会和政治冲突，这些冲突只发生在受法国大革命影响和促成法国大革命的众多国家中的一个启蒙运动。

Many cultural changes that occurred in France around the time of theRevolution might well have occurred in one way or another anyway; thus acareful analyst has no warrant to attribute them to "revolutionary"anything. Meanwhile, the particular versions of Enlightenment ideas elaboratedin Old Regime and revolutionary France were affected by the politicalinstitutions and conflicts of the time, just as the politics was influenced byEnlightenment ideas. Yet there was no simple fusion of Enlightenment andpolitics.

法国在革命前后发生的许多文化变化，无论如何都可能以某种方式发生；因此，细心的分析人士没有理由把它们归因于“革命”的任何东西。同时，旧政权和革命法兰西所阐述的启蒙思想的特定版本也受到当时政治制度和冲突的影响，正如政治受到启蒙思想的影响一样。 然而， 启蒙运动和政治并没有简单的融合。鉴于启蒙思想本身的性质，几乎不可能存在。

Sewell 一次又一次地指出了包括卢梭在内的哲学界人士所持的各种含蓄和明确的政治观点，并强调他们有幸规定任何特定的政治改革或制度安排。 Sewell 知道所有这些，并报告了其中一些。但他是否意识到，这些现实使他试图将“启蒙原则”转变为一种统治“意识形态”，从而从 1789 年 8 月起在革命的法国构建政治论据和政治行动，其问题有多大？无论是智力生产还是文化框架的非正式推理，都是“社会秩序的构成”。相反，多元文化习语并存，它们出现，衰落，并且混合在需要被知识分子和社会文化历史学家探索的节奏中。

Cultural idioms have a longer-term, more anonymous, and less partisan existence than ideologies. When political actors construct ideological arguments for particular action-related purposes, they invariably use or take account of available cultural idioms, and those idioms may structure their arguments in partially unintended ways. Yet they may also develop newideological arguments in response to the exigencies of the unfolding political struggle itself.

在任何一个特定的时间，文化习语都是由具体的行动者所借鉴的，因为他们试图理解自己的活动以及自己与其他行动者的关系。

Ideology vs Cultural idioms

The choices and uses of available idioms -and the particular potentials within them that are elaborated- will also be influenced by thesocial and political situations of the acting groups, and the tasks they needto accomplish in relation to one another

可用习语的选择和使用，以及其中详细阐述的特殊潜力，也将受到表演团体的社会和政治状况以及它们相互之间需要完成的任务的影响。

I prefer to reserve the term "ideology" for idea systemsdeployed as self-conscious political arguments by identifiable politicalactors. Ideologies in this sense are developed and deployed by particulargroups or alliances engaged in temporally specific political conflicts orattempts to justify the use of state power.

我更愿意保留“意识形态”一词，用于由可识别的政治行为体部署为自我意识政治论据的思想体系。从这个意义上说，意识形态是由参与暂时性政治冲突或试图证明使用国家权力正当性的特定团体或联盟发展和部署的。

Cultural idioms have a longer-term, more anonymous, and lesspartisan existence than ideologies. When political actors construct ideologicalarguments for particular action-related purposes, they invariably use or takeaccount of available cultural idioms, and those idioms may structure theirarguments in partially unintended ways.

文化习语比意识形态有更长期、更匿名、更少派系（ partisan ）的存在。当政治行为体为特定的行动相关目的构建意识形态论据时，他们总是使用或考虑可用的文化习语，这些习语可能会以部分非故意的方式构建他们的论据。

Yet they may also develop new ideological arguments in response tothe exigencies of the unfolding political struggle itself. By thus separatelyconceptualizing "cultural idioms" and "ideologies," one canhope to attend to the interplay of the non-intentionalist.

然而，他们也可能发展新的意识形态论据来应对政治斗争本身的紧迫性。通过将“文化习语”和“意识形态”分别概念化，人们可以希望关注非现实主义者的相互作用。

and intentionalist aspects of ideas in revolutions much as I triedto do in States and Social Revolutions by examining class and state structures in relation to the goals and capacities of acting groups." Substantively speaking, the analysis of cultural idioms and ideologies in social revolutions deserves treatment analogous to the analysis of class relations and class conflicts: both phenomena must be studied in relation to the central drama ofthe breakdown and rebuilding of state organizations.

革命中思想的意向主义方面， 正如我在国家和社会革命中所做的那样，通过考察阶级和国家结构与行动团体的目标和能力的关系，分析社会革命中的文化习语和意识形态，应该像分析阶级关系和阶级冲突那样对待：这两种现象都必须结合国家组织解体和重建的中心戏剧来研究 。

对 Sewell 意识形态改革论的批判：

Sewell asserts that a huge range of reforms introduced by Frenchrevolutionaries "are in comprehensible except as a result of [Enlightenment]revolutionary ideology." I do not agree (and I am not even exactly sure what this statement means). Although many reforms were indeed conceptualized inthe light of certain understandings of Enlightenment ideals, the reforms figured in ongoing political struggles and typically helped (as much aspossible in given circumstances) to strengthen the authority of the French national state in relation to the Church and particular private groups rangingfrom the wealthy and privileged to local communities.

Sewell 说，法国革命者推行的一系列改革“是可以理解的，除非是由于（启蒙运动）革命意识形态。 ”我不同意这种说法（我 甚至不确定这种他说这些的确切含义） 。 尽管许多改革确实是根据对启蒙理想的某些理解而提出的，改革体现在正在进行的政治斗争中，通常有助于（在特定情况下尽可能多地）加强法国民族国家对教会和从富人和特权阶层到当地社区等特殊私人团体的权威。

Instead, the outcomes of the French Revolution-ranging from private property to administrative rationalization to the Concordat with the Catholic church-were nonintentionally shaped by the interactions of all of the intentionally mobilized political discourses that figured in the conflicts to displace and replace the Old Regime. A full analysis of the many ways that cultural idioms figured in the political arguments of the French Revolution, aswell as in the shaping of its complex and contradictory outcomes, requires attention to much more than just Enlightenment discourse treated as if it werea cultural system "constitutive of social order."

取而代之的是，法国大革命的结果，从私有财产到行政合理化，再到与天主教会的和谐，都是由在冲突中出现的、旨在取代和取代旧政权的所有有意识动员的政治话语相互作用而非有意识地形成的。 要全面分析文化习语在法国大革命的政治争论中以及在其复杂和矛盾结果的形成中所起的多种作用，就需要关注的不仅仅是被视为“社会秩序构成”的文化体系的启蒙话语。

It requires that we examine very concretely the consciousness andtalk of particularly situated acting groups, and that we take seriously theessentially political tasks they were trying to ac complish during theRevolution. From this perspective, Enlightenment dis courses-plural-emerge asimportant idioms, but not the only idioms, used in the political ideologiesdeveloped by revolutionary state builders in France from 1789 until thecollapse of the Terror. Recognizing this, we can do a more historicallygrounded job of explaining the culturally conditioned choices of theseconscious actors-and a better job of explaining the successes and failures oftheir ideas and arguments within the overall context of multiple culturalidioms and contending ideologies that constituted the ideational aspect of theFrench Revolution.

非常确切地说，特别是处境特殊的表演团体的意识和言论，以及我们认真对待他们在革命期间试图完成的基本政治任务。从这个角度看，启蒙运动的“多元性”作为一个重要的习语出现了，但并不是唯一的习语，在 1789 年法国革命国家建设者发展起来的政治意识形态中使用，直到恐怖时代的崩溃 。认识到这一点，我们可以做一个更有历史根据的工作，解释这些有意识的行为体的文化条件的选择，更好地解释他们的思想和论点的成功和失败，在多个文化习语和竞争意识形态的总体背景下，这些习语和意识形态构成了法国大革命。

FROM THE FRENCH CASE TO COMPARATIVE STUDIES

Sewell suggests at one point that the "totality of revolutionary ambition," the will to "transform the entirety of people's social lives-their work, their religious beliefs and practice, their families, their legal systems, their patterns of sociability, even their experiences of space and time"-"be included as part of any meaningful definition of 'social revolution.' " In my view, this would impose a misreading of the French Revolution , an inappropriate conflation of the Enlightenment and the Revolution, onto aconcept that needs to allow more room for the analysis of variations across modern history.