The Turning from Social Anthropology to Social History :A Study on Chinese

一直以来,学术界对中国宗族研究有两种不同的取向。在革命话语的影响下,宗族被当作落后的意识形态和社会组织加以批判;而人类学家弗里德曼则以功能主义为方法总结出以"祀产"为核心的中国宗族运作模式。历史学家科大卫等结合历史学和社会人类学的研究取径,提出"入住权"的概念和"宗族是一种文化资源和控产机构"等论断,显示出超越功能主义的具有整 一直以来,学术界对中国宗族研究有两种不同的取向。在革命话语的影响下,宗族被当作落后的意识形态和社会组织加以批判;而人类学家弗里德曼则以功能主义为方法总结出以"祀产"为核心的中国宗族运作模式。历史学家科大卫等结合历史学和社会人类学的研究取径,提出"入住权"的概念和"宗族是一种文化资源和控产机构"等论断,显示出超越功能主义的具有整体历史视野的宗族研究学术路径,是从中国历史发展演变逻辑出发的历史人类学宗族研究的一种成功实践。 历史人类学宗族研究的一种成功实践。 

The academia have been holding two different perspectives in the studies of Chinese clans.Under the influence of revolutionary words, clans have been criticized as backward ideology and social organizations.While by the way of functionalism, Maurice Freedman, an anthropologist, summarized the operation model of Chinese clans with the sacrificial property as its core.Historians, such as David Faure , by combining the ways of history with social anthropology , present the concept of habitation and argue that clans are culture resources and organizations of corporation.This is not only a way of studies of clans that surpasses functionalism and views history as a whole , but also a successful practice of historical anthropology which does researches on clans from the logic of Chinese history.

乔素玲； 黄国信；

 国家社科基金项目“地域视野中的法制转型”(项目编号09BFX007)的研究成果

欢迎阅读《社会学研究》！您是该文第2996位读者！