TEXTS AND TRADITIONS IN CHINESE AND COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY

This article considers Quentin Skinner's critique and methodology in his seminal essay “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas” vis-à-vis the current methodological debates in Chinese and comparative philosophy. It surveys the different ways in which philosophers who work with ancient Chinese texts in those related fields deal with the tension between textual contexts and autonomy and how some of the errors criticized by Skinner under the mythology of coherence, mythology of doctrines, mythology of parochialism, and mythology of prolepsis might apply to those fields. It argues that Skinner's insistence that understanding a text requires recovering its author's intended meaning by studying its linguistic context has limited application to Chinese and comparative philosophy because those fields’ most important texts are not best understood as means of communication by specific historical authors with intended messages to convey to readers. These texts are instead the means by which Chinese traditions perpetuate their respective beliefs and practices. Instead of being circumscribed by authorial intent, the meanings of traditional texts are dynamic and co-created in the process of producing, reproducing, and consuming texts as well as in the evolution of practices that also constitute each tradition. The meanings received by the audience are never exactly what authors or transmitters intended but have been transformed by each audience's own concerns and interests, even if the audience attempts to grasp what the former intended. Using the Five Classics and the Analects as examples, this article illustrates how such texts’ purposes to teach and perpetuate the practices that constitute a way of life determine their meanings. Understanding is not merely cognitive but practical as well. The meanings of such texts are not static but dynamic as traditions evolve. The debates about methods of reading and interpreting ancient Chinese texts are also debates about the nature of Chinese traditions and struggles over their futures.     

穿行在传统与现代之间的贵州新学——《新学入黔：贵州近代教育的源流与发展》序

近代"新学"的传播一方面与"西学"的挑激与引进有关,一方面也与儒家传统内部变革思想的高涨紧密相联.就"新学"入黔并逐渐本土化的具体过程而言,无论国家权力系统或地方知识精英,都发挥了主导性的范约作用,并构成了错综复杂的知识格局.严修、李端菜、张之洞、粱启超四人,虽然他们最终的价值选择不尽相同,但均一度徘徊或游离于传统与现代之间,直接间接地影响了黔地"新学"的传播,值得以个案的方式认真加以研究.地方精英华之鸿创办文通书局,在"新学"的传播史上可说是厥功甚伟.抗日战争时期大批外省高校内迁贵州从事讲学科研活动,则标志着地方文化的现代性转型进入了"质"的飞跃发展阶段.     

让辞书更完善——读《（汉语大词典）商补》

王锳光生《〈汉语大词典〉商补》分六个部分对《汉语大词典》进行补正,考证深入细致,结论精审可信;注重所引文献的版本源流、出处和优劣;参证文献比较广泛,尤其是对于近代汉语方面的文献典籍,运用得得心应手。不过,"提前书证"中的部分词条最早用例尚可进一步上溯。     

关于利用历史文献信息进行环境演变研究的几点看法

针对如何更好地利用我国丰富的历史文献记录,开展历史时期环境演变研究,本文提出四点看法:从地球系统科学与全球变化研究的前沿中寻找研究的主题,在诸多不确定中寻找确定性答案,构建历史文献信息共享的环境演变研究平台,培养文理兼备的复合型人才。     

跨国场域下的企业家精神、国家与社会网络：中国新移民的个案分析

以在新加坡的中国新移民企业家为个案,简要地讨论企业家和企业家精神的内涵及其在全球化时代的展延;分析了新移民企业家跨国知识与技术优势在新兴企业成长中扮演关键作用;论述了跨国移民企业家产生与发展的不可或缺的外在因素以及由此形成的双赢策略;进而阐述跨国性的理论架构如何有助于解释华人企业家在当代世界和中国社会经济发展中的作用。     

依旧是“客人”：印度加尔各答客家人认同的重塑

从奥兰多·帕特森的种族定义入手,探讨加尔各答客家人种族认同的构成,就加尔各答客家人而言,有三个因素对确立和维持其认同具有重要意义：即国家和民族政治、不同种族从事不同职业的分层制经济和东道国以“洁”与“不洁”之间的象征性对立为基础的宗教制度。种族、种姓、语言和宗教是维持种族认同的几个重要因素。种族认同会随着条件的变化而发生转变,由于职业、教育和政治环境迥然不同,客家人其认同轨道会截然不同。     

文化遗产 文化自觉 文化建设——追寻中国文化遗产事业的发展历程

文物古迹是过去文化的载体,文化既是不同人们共同体在特定时空中适应环境与社会的结晶,也是人类曾经的生存可能性的记录,因此,文化遗产是发展的智慧资源而非包袱。改革开放以来我们对文物与文化遗产及其价值的认识有一个不断拓展和提高的过程,经历了由古玩、文物到全民性的文化遗产自觉的演变。正确认识和处理不同文化及历史文化遗产,既是作为文明古国的中国发展过程中无法避开的选择,也是全球化、信息化时代古今中外文化大会面时代人类和谐共处、共同繁荣的前提性要求。     

加拿大二线城市华人新移民经济融合研究——“三重玻璃效应”与移民向下层社会流动

论文对加拿大二线城市卡尔加里和爱德蒙顿华人新移民的主要特点、移民动机和融合过程中的主要障碍进行了分析,探讨了新移民在加拿大向下层社会流动的问题。研究显示,新移民在经济融合过程中遭遇多方面的障碍,尤其在就业和语言方面。他们在移民加拿大之后,经历了去技能化和以前的学历和工作经验贬值,促使他们向下层社会流动,而这种状况反过来又阻碍了他们的融合进程。华人新移民的负面经历可以归因于由玻璃大门、玻璃房门和玻璃天花板构成的"三重玻璃效应"。加拿大政府应采纳融合框架政策,除承认移民的流动自由外,还要保证他们能享有与其他加拿大人一样同等的公民权益。     

民国时期华文教育本土化探析——以国语文教材的编写为视角

论文以民国时期大陆学人与东南亚学人所编东南亚华校国语教材为视角,探讨华文教育本土化问题。认为大陆学人所编东南亚华校国语教材的本土化倾向包括选材符合国外实际、稳妥处理敏感话题、教给儿童规范汉语及配以实用方便的教学法;东南亚学人所编东南亚华校国语教材的本土化倾向包括突出第二语言教学的特性、使用外语进行解释及强调国语文的特点。     

Innovations of modern Chinese history studies since reform and opening-up

This paper reviews new developments in the study of modern Chinese history since 1979, especially key questions in modern Chinese history, together with innovations in content, structure and research methods. These new developments reflect the broadening of academic exchanges with foreign countries, the initiation of reforms, the influence of the modernization process, and far-reaching innovations in the discipline of modern Chinese history studies since the reform and opening-up of China.