论文部分内容阅读
1933年夏 ,数名缺乏必要的“田野工作”训练和人文心理准备的学者 ,开始了在浙江乡村的经济调查 ,以为救济和复兴乡村之张本。但乡民们对于调查并不配合 ,学者们感到莫名委屈 ,认为“农民知识幼稚 ,头脑简单” ,由此感到需要加强上下层社会的沟通。在对社群心态 ① 进行这样的“本位理解”之后 ,进入乡村的学者利用社群关系和公共空间话语 ,完成了这次调查。应该说 ,学者们的经验性探索难能可贵 ,但与学理意义上的“田野工作”颇异其趣。以此调查为个例的研究表明 ,在社会史研究范式之下 ,“社群”理应成为被重视的研究单位 ;社会史研究对象的特质 ,迫切要求跨学科对话的充分展开。
In the summer of 1933, several scholars who lacked the necessary “field work” training and humanistic psychology to prepare began an economic survey in the villages of Zhejiang Province in the hope of relieving and rejuvenating the villages. However, the villagers did not cooperate with the investigation. The scholars felt inexplicable grievances that “farmers are naive and simple-minded,” and feel that there is a need to strengthen communication between the upper and lower classes. After making such a “home-based understanding” of community mentality, the scholars who came into the country used the social relations and public space discourse to complete the survey. It should be said that the empirical exploration of scholars is commendable, but quite different from the “fieldwork” in the academic sense. The research based on this survey shows that under the paradigm of social history research, “community” should become a valued research institution; the characteristics of the research object of social history urgently require interdisciplinary dialogue to be fully launched.