“一元”与“二元”的历史变奏——对日本“国家主义”一元政治进程的历史与现实分析/Variations on a Theme of“Centralized Str

2018-09-22 00:54:51

structure process political Japan 一元



本文用“国家主义”(Nationalism)定义日本“一元政治进程”的具体内容,将日本的“国家主义”作为一个高度一元化的动态的政治进程加以考察和分析,重在究明导致这一“政治进程”在岛国日本形成或发生的“内在机制”与活动规律。
为系统全面地研究上述问题,本文在分析和追溯的起点上不完全拘泥于近代以来的“国家主义”话语版本,而是从日本的历史源头开始挖掘,通过将这一政治进程纳入“历史结构”在一定条件下的自我转换这一理论框架,用“大历史”的眼光对之进行梳理、甄别和考察,以找出隐藏在这一“政治进程”背后起支配作用的一般规律或原理,并在此基础上,对本文的重点,也即发生在当下日本岛上的“新国家主义”一元政治进程进行深入探讨与分析,给出与历史逻辑相一致的学理上的解释与说明。
日本“历史结构”的自我转换,是在一定历史条件下发生的一种有规律的活动。从历史上看,每当“二元结构”在外部强大力量的冲击下发生危机并出现解体时,日本总会习惯性地趋向“一元”,指向国家,即整个社会就像软体动物一样会习惯性地收缩到国家层面,寻求国家庇护以躲避风险,同时还会自觉与不自觉地聚集全岛资源和力量来一致对外。而一旦外部危机被成功地化解后,日本又会自动地(有时是被迫)由一元状态(非常态)再度地以“某种方式”重返传统的二元分裂状态(常态),同时继续其发展。当危机再次降临时,日本又会自动地转换到一元状态。虽然每一次的转换在“条件”和“具体内容”上均有所不同,但在“结构”与“形态”上却显示出了一种惊人的形似性与重复性。这种在外压下造成的“二元结构”在解体后自动地向“一元结构”转换的自我调节方式,几乎已演变为日本社会化解外部危机进行自救的一种有效方式与手段。
这一“结构转换”原理或规律似乎已演化成了岛国的一种固有的生存方式或模式。古代如此:在华夏文明的冲击下,“大化改新”是日本为摆脱国内外的困境,模仿隋唐大胆地走中央集权国家道路的一次尝试和体验,但这一以中央集权国家为基本内容的一元政治进程最终却因氏族政治的崛起而遭到失败,又习惯性地回到了原来分散的状态,并最终确立了以“幕/藩二元体制”为基本内容的“二元政治格局”。近代也是如此:在西方文明的冲击下,日本为摆脱国内外危机,再次从分散走向聚合,大胆地模仿西方近代民族国家的建制,迈上了以天皇制国家为基本内容的一元政治进程,但这一高度一元化的政治进程却因日本对外的疯狂侵略和扩张再次遭到惨败。这样战败后的日本被美国强行改造后,随着“国家主义”的销声匿迹,又习惯性地回到了分散状态,并最终形成了“政府/企业二元体制”。
二战的失败,导致了近代国家神话在日本人心中的幻灭,“国家主义”成了话语禁区,“国家”也因此成了“恶”的代名词和历史的罪人,失去了往日的辉煌、信誉和威望。人们不再对国家奉献忠诚,放弃了对国家的认同和追随,失去了对国家的信念和热情。“脱国家主义”的情绪一时成为战后整个社会共同的总体政治意向和社会风潮。
但这一政治禁区随着日本经济在战后的迅猛崛起,开始受到挑战和质疑。发端于上世纪80年代的日本“新国家主义”,在冷战结束后曾一度得到进一步的加强,又经过泡沫经济的崩溃和“失去的10年”的一番折腾,这一进程开始发生深刻的“质变”,使得被禁锢已久的“国家主义”开始从最初的社会思潮,演化为一种强烈的岛国政治意志和倾向,一种建立在广泛的“民意”基础上的全岛一致的政治选择,一种未来的主流发展趋势。
如何解释这一政治现象?本文依据日本特有的“历史结构”在一定条件下的自我转换原理,揭示了其内在的生成机制、运行路径和逻辑规则:在全球化浪潮的冲击下,日本战后形成的以政府/企业为基本内容的“二元结构”模式发生了空前危机,处在被不断解构的危难之中,从而导致了整个社会渴望向“一元政治”回归的强烈冲动。尤其是随着企业这一命运共同体的“解体”,社会对新的一元目标的追求就自然而然地由企业等地方性中间组织转向了国家,开始对国家提出新的要求,期望重建国家这一传统的共同体,渴望得到国家的保护,并借助于国家的力量来回应危机。这样,日本社会便进入了旧的“二元结构”模式逐渐解体,开始缓慢地向重建和强化国家、向“新国家主义”一元政治进程回归的历史转型期。
氏族政治原理将会在暗中深刻地制约着这一进程,因此天皇与“天皇制”是日本向“国家主义”一元政治进程回归时最有可能动用的一大传统政治资源。

本文共分前言、目录、正文、中日文参考文献、后记等部分。其中前言部分概述了作者研究这一课题的几点感想和体会,以便审阅者能在较短的时间里把握与了解作者的基本思路和观点。正文的主要部分是由三篇六章组成,如同一首由三个声部组成的大型时代“变奏曲”一般。每一篇又都由两章组成,按照“一元”和“二元”的历史节拍发生“变奏”,构成了一个独立完整的回合。各篇之间的关系又是层层递进的,时间上是由远而近(古代→近现代→当代),直逼当下的主题。在正文的首尾各安排了序章和结束语。序章主要是提出问题,并对一些基本概念进行界定,对论文的基本思路进行陈述。在结束部分则对论文的创新点和课题研究前景进行了展望。
正文的第一篇是古代部分,第1、2章主要叙述了日本在华夏文明的影响和冲击下如何从多元走向一元的过程,以及如何因氏族政治的复辟又从“一元”返回“二元”。该篇总结出在历史磨合中自然形成的日本独特的“历史结构”所具有的一些基本特点,回答了日本古代中央集权国家是如何形成并走向失败,以及“幕/藩二元体制”是如何形成等问题。
第二篇是近代与现代部分,第3章主要叙述了日本的“幕/藩二元体制”在西方文明的猛烈冲击下如何解体,以及解体后如何回归一元,确立了以天皇制国家为基本内容的一元政治进程。该章确认了在外来冲击下“历史结构”的转型与国家主义一元政治进程形成之间的内在逻辑关系。第4章则叙述了一元政治解体后,日本如何在美国的强迫下放弃“国家主义”,又习惯性地重返多元,形成了“政府/企业二元体制”,并在结构形态上显示出了与前近代“幕/藩体制”惊人的相似性。
第三篇是当代部分,第5章主要叙述了在全球化浪潮的冲击下,日本战后形成的“政府/企业二元体制”如何面临危机,趋于解体,社会因此而自发地向以重建和强化国家为基本内容的一元政治进程回归。该章再次从“历史结构”转换的角度回答并确认了日本当下“新国家主义”一元政治进程形成的深层原因是什么;第6章则对在这一进程的外在表现形式进行了系统整理和归纳,通过对局部现象的分析,来丰富人们对日本“新国家主义”一元政治进程的整体认识。

论文力图在以下方面有所进展和突破:
1、用“大历史”的眼光,从历史的源头对日本的“国家主义”一元政治进程进行系统的梳理和再认识,从中发现和找到一个能穿越古今贯穿始终的政治逻辑链条。
2、指出“历史结构”转换的条件,并对“历史结构”在“一元”与“二元”之间转换的不同内涵和基本特征,给出与时代(古代、近现代与当代)相符的合理定义与诠释;
3、从“历史结构”在一定条件下自我转换这一高度抽象的理论视角看日本“国家主义”一元政治进程的形成与发展,用历史的演变来验证两者之间的内在逻辑关系;
4、用历史的逻辑和政治学原理来解释当下日本“新国家主义”一元政治进程发生的深层原因,并判明其是否具有某种不以人们意志为转移的历史必然性。
5、弄清传统的氏族政治文化是如何影响和制约日本“国家主义”一元政治进程的。



In this thesis, the writer defines Japan’s “centralized political process” as “Nation”, which has been “Nationalism” since modern times, mainly aiming at finding out the “innate regulations” of this “political process” in the island country through overviewing the variable process.
In order to make a comprehensive study, the writer doesn't confine “Nationalism” to its modern meaning, but begins at the origins of Japan's history putting the process into “historical structure”,a theoretical frame which had varied automatically under some conditions, to get the hidden general principle from the view of “macro-history”. In addition to this, the writer is also trying to explain the present Japan's “Neo-nationalism” political process intellectually according with history.
This self-variation of Japan's “historicl structure” is a regular activity under some conditions. In the past, when the “dual structure” came to a crisis under attack from the outside great power, the whole society would collect its all resources consciously as well as inadvertently just as mollusk towards “centalized structure” to be under nation's protection. Once the crisis was dissolved successfully, the society would return to its conventional structure (the usual form) that is plural from centralized structure (the unusual form) automatically (sometimes forcibly) and then continued in the innate track. When Japan came to the next crisis, it would go into centralized structure automatically. Even though these variations taking place under different conditions with different contents, they were extremely similar to one another in structure and characteristics. This adjusting way under outside pressure has almost become an effective means of Japan's dissolving crises.
This principle of “structural variations” seems to become Japan's fixed surviving way. In the ancient time, Taika Reformation, the introduction of the Chinese model of state administration, was an attempt to go towards centralized structure which collapsed because of tribesmen politics to extricate itself from predicament in Japan and abroad. After the failure of centralized system, the society was in decentralized state again and the “Military bureaucratic government”was finally formed. In modern times, the introduction of the Western model of state administration under attack of advanced civilization was the process of Japan's centralized politics which disintegrated on account of its crazy expansion. Japan's failure in WWII resulted in the diappearance of “Nationalism” and the establishment of the “post-war socio-political system” the U.S. occupation.
Failure of WWII caused a fact that the mystique of modern nations had vanished into thin air for Japanese people. As a result, “Nationalism” became taboo words and “Nation” was a synonym of “evil” which had lost its former prestige. Thereafter, people were no longer devoted themselves to their nation enthusiastically and faithfully. The entire society was in the mood of “Extra-nationalism” and later it became a post-war political tendency and social agitation.
However, this political taboo was challenged and questioned as Japan's economic success in post-war period. The “New National Structure Movement” in the 1980s was ever promoted after Cold War, in addition to this, the collapse of bubble economy and suffering of “lost 10 years” makes the process “change deeply”. Meanwhile, “Nationalism” is gradually becoming an obvious political trend based on a widespread “popular will” choice and is also a major direction in the future society.
How to interpret this political phenomenon? The writer points out how the “historical structure” was established, operated and regulated logically? The fact that the post-war “socio-political system” being deconstructionalized came to a unprecedented crisis inspired people's desireness of “Nation”. Especially as entreprises which is considered as destiny entity collapsed, the aim people pursue for is naturally towards Nation to rebuild a traditional community reacting to crises under Nation's protection. Hence, Japan is in a transional period of the “socio-political system” being gradually discarded and “Neo-nationalism” being rebuilt lowly.
The principle of tribesmen politics would affect Nationalism process secretly and deeply, therefore, “Mikado” would be probably an important traditional means.

The thesis contains preface, contents, the main body, reference books in both Chinese and Japanese, postscript and so on.
The preface is mainly about the writer's ideas which helps reviewers to grasp key points of the thesis. That the main body consists of three parts, including six chapters, is just like a majestic “Variation on Time” constituting three parts. Each part has two chapters forming a perfect round in accordance with regulations of Japan's political process and the three parts is related together logically and sequentially from ancient, modern, contemporary times to nowadays. In the beginning of the main body is foreword which is mainly about raising issues, defining basic concepts and stating the main idea of thesis and in the end is concluding remarks which is mainly about original ideas of the thesis and prospects of the research topic.
The first part is about ancient times mainly stating how Japan variated from plural system to centralized system and how to variate from “centralized structure” to “dual structure” because of restorstion of tribesmen politics. The writer summarises the characteristics of Japan's unique “historical structure” formed in the course of history and answers questions of how the centralized system was established and failed causing the establishment of “military-bureaucratic system”.
The second part is about modern times mainly stating how the “military-bureaucratic system” collapsed and how centralized structure was established in the third chapter. Beside this, the writer confirms that there exists an innate logical relationship between “historical structure”and “Nationalism” process under outside attacks. In the fourth chapter, the writer states that how Japan gave up Nationalism under the U.S. pressure after collapse of centralized system and returned to pluralism habitually and establishment of “socio-political system” which is astonishingly parallel to the “military-bureaucratic system”.
The third part is about contemporary times mainly stating how post-war Japan's “socio-political system” comes to crisis at the edge of collapse in the process of globlization and there appears a tendency of returing to Nationalism spontaneously in the social world. Additionally, the writer also finds out deep reasons of the political process from the view of variations on “historical structure”. In the sixth chapter, the writer investigates concrete cases by synthesizing forms of the political process to help people under the process more correctly.
The writer is trying to make progress and breakthroug in the following aspects:
1, Analysing Japan's centralized political process starting from origins of history with the point of “macro-history” to find out a political logic chain which can be running through the whole history;
2, Pointing out the conditions of variations on “historical structure” and defining “historical structure” of different stages ( ancient, modern, contemporary times) properly;
3, Making a general survey of Japan's Nationalist political process from a highly abstract theorectical view of “historical structure” which variates automatically under some conditions to verify their innate logical relationship;
4, Finding out essential reasons of present Japan's centralized political process (“Neo-nationalism”) by historical logic and principles of political science to ascertain whether the process is inevitable without the factors of people's will;
5, Making clear that how the culture of traditional tribesmen politics affect Japan's “Nationalism” centralized political process.