从引文分析看大陆华侨华人研究——基于CSSCI（1998-2005）的研究

以中国社会科学引文索引(CSSCI)为操作平台,以核心作者群的被引论著为样本,对样本篇数、篇次、作者、机构、地域分布、主题分布、年代分布等因素进行了引文分析和量化的描述,并从文献的角度对大陆华侨华人研究现状进行评估。结果表明:大陆华侨华人研究1993—2002年是高峰期,形成了以福建、北京、广东为主的核心作者群,高等院校仍是华侨华人研究的主要机构,研究主题以经济、社会、历史为主,学术论文的利用率不高,高水平的研究成果不多。华侨华人研究在学术界的整体影响力不大,某些不够科学和规范的引证态度和方法亟需改进。     

东南亚金融危机后的缅甸经济政策与华商

1997年东南亚金融危机后,缅甸政府为阻止经济恶化,采取了推进农业改革、加速国有企业私营化步伐、拓宽融资渠道和加强边贸发展等措施,为缅甸华商的发展创造了一定的机会,华人经济得到进一步发展。而缅甸动荡的政治局势、缅甸经济改革中存在的弊端和问题及中国新移民在缅甸的涌现,是缅甸华商未来发展必须应对的问题。     

华人网络与韩人网络的比较研究

通过当前韩国对于海外华人四个方面的"似是而非"认识的分析,对华商网络的倾向与特征、建设韩民族网络等问题的探讨,得出结论:韩国华侨与韩国所理解的海外华人之间存在很大的差异;当代韩国政府希望能像中国充分发挥海外华人的优势那样,使海外韩人发展成为韩国在21世纪的新的成长动力并加以利用的认识是一种错误的"乐观判断";海外华人对祖国的向心力,不只是来自爱国情,更重要的是其生存保障与利益的实现;中韩两国的侨务政策存在区别,中国致力于"护侨",而韩国的目光集中于"用侨"。     

日伪时期的南京英美侨民及其活动

侵华日军当局在南京大屠杀后,到1941年12月太平洋战争爆发前,基于其外交政策的需要,对继续留驻在南京的英美侨民,采取表面的礼遇、利用与事实上的限制、打击的两面态度与两手政策;而英美侨民则在艰难的条件下,与之进行了针锋相对的斗争.这是南京抗战史与中国抗战史的一项重要内容,呈现出纷繁复杂而又丰富多彩的内容与特点.这段过去被长期忽视的抗战史内容,应引起史学界的重视.     

日本右翼势力支持"台独"的历史考察

日本右翼势力对“台独”的支持大体经历了三个时期:战后初期,日本右翼势力是“台独”逆流的始作俑者和首开“台独”运动先河的罪魁祸首;冷战时期,日本右翼势力不仅在中日复交前使本国成为“台独”势力的大本营,而且在中日复交后仍一如既往、不遗余力地支持“台独”;后冷战时期,日本右翼势力支持“台独”不仅变本加厉,而且呈现出民间与政界配合、右翼与政府呼应之特点。     

道书音注的语料价值

道教文献在辞书编纂和文献校勘方面具有一定的参考价值,文章利用道书中的音义材料并结合道教文化,从收字、注音等方面对《汉语大字典》的缺漏作补正,并对唐代段成式的《酉阳杂俎》作了校勘。     

日本泉屋博古馆所见先秦私文书——商青铜私文书的兴起

日本泉屋博古馆收藏并展示的我国早年流散到海外的部分先秦青铜器,是中国先秦文化不可缺少的重要内容之一。商青铜私文书只是先秦私文书的一部分,并非是我国最早的私文书。“九五”期间国家重大科研课题“夏商周断代工程”的某些研究成果表明,商以前就已有文书记录产生,如再加以考古出土实物印证,夏就有可能是先秦私文书的起源时期,为此,笔者将商只作为中国青铜私文书的兴起阶段。     

《艾登备忘录》与二战末期英国对藏政策

《艾登备忘录》是英国政府1943年制定的对藏政策。其内容延续了英国一贯主张的“宗主权”理论,并以“西藏自治”来要挟中国政府。古德使团依照此政策在拉萨鼓动西藏自治之后,英国外交部又决定反思其西藏政策,但遭到印度政府和印度事务部的反对。从总体来看,无论《艾登备忘录》的提出,还是英国对藏政策的波动,都是出于英国对华总政策的需要。     

"虚拟"先人与十九世纪新加坡华人社会--兼论海外华人的"亲属"概念

在东南亚殖民地时代,"虚拟血缘"的组织原则对于华人移民社会的重组重建及其运作,具有重要的意义.本文以19世纪的新加坡为个案,考察华人移民如何透过埋葬先人的坟山组织建构"社群共祖"以整合华人社会,讨论东南亚华人虚拟的"先人"或"祖先"概念,进而思考海外华人的亲属研究问题.本文也讨论与比较了"虚拟血缘"组织原则在明代华南宗族"联宗"形态、台湾汉人社会发展早期的"合约式"宗族和东南亚华人坟山组织的不同运用.     

A MOST MODERN SUBJECT: THE DISCIPLINE OF HISTORY AND THE FASHIONING OF NATIONALIST AND OTHER MODERN SUBJECTIVITIES

This book takes an ethnographic approach to its topic by endeavoring to observe how social and disciplinary subjects shaped by modernity go on to constitute modern worlds. Specifically, it attempts to “explore modernity as a contradictory and checkered historical-cultural entity and category as well as a contingent and contended process and condition” (1). Most of the subjects considered are intellectuals and academic disciplines (specifically history and anthropology), although the argument occasionally focuses on artists as well. The book particularly recognizes and analyzes the ambiguities, ambivalences, and contradictions generated within modernity not as mistakes or gaps like so many potholes to be fixed over time, but as constitutive of the modern landscape itself. This accepting acknowledgment, in turn, stands central to the book's endeavor to resist the teleological paradigms inherent in many modern metaphors regarding roads that must be traveled to move from what is backward to what is forward, from a superseded past to a promising future. Central to the volume—and its most original contribution—are various deliberations on the productions of time and space by various subjects. To be clear, by “time” the book means history and temporality whereas “space” suggests tradition and culture. It resists the naturalization of modern constructs such as secularized time and cultural traditions, and forces them under an analytic lens. Critical to these investigations is Saurabh Dube's appropriately insistent claim that these temporal and spatial regimes can exist in tandem and coevally, even when they are seemingly in contradiction. Among other outcomes, the volume prompts further reflection on the manner in which historiography plays a role in the formation of nationalist and modern subjectivities among nonhistorians. This essay seeks to think through the history of history as a discipline emerging during the coalescence of a hegemonic European episteme and the emergence of a popularly embraced scientism. Despite its roots in Europe long preceding modernity and its parallels in South Asia preceding British rule, history underwent a transformation when inflected through European modernity, especially the influence of empirical science paradigms. Although its emergence as a discipline promoted and employed by both the empire and the nation-state created professional historians, an expanding public sphere has meant that research into its role in fashioning modern subjectivities (including nationalist ones) must consider its reshaping and redeployment by those resisting European-originated modernity and promoting alternative modernities.