书籍 Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine的封面

Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine

Maura Dykstra

出版时间

2022-08-15

ISBN

9780674270954

评分

★★★★★
书籍介绍

Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine investigates the administrative revolution of China’s eighteenth-century Qing state. It begins in the mid-seventeenth century with what seemed, at the time, to be straightforward policies to clean up the bureaucracy: a regulation about deadlines here, a requirement about reporting standards there. Over the course of a hundred years, the central court continued to demand more information from the provinces about local administrative activities. By the middle of the eighteenth century, unprecedented amounts of data about local offices throughout the empire existed.

The result of this information coup was a growing discourse of crisis and decline. Gathering data to ensure that officials were doing their jobs properly, it turned out, repeatedly exposed new issues requiring new forms of scrutiny. Slowly but surely, the thicket of imperial routines and standards binding together local offices, provincial superiors, and central ministries shifted the very epistemological foundations of the state. A vicious cycle arose whereby reporting protocols implemented to solve problems uncovered more problems, necessitating the collection of more information. At the very moment that the Qing knew more about itself than ever before, the central court became certain that it had entered an age of decline.

Maura Dykstra is Assistant Professor of History at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).

用户评论
太一般了。以前关注过作者写的研究巴县商业和法律的博论,不知什么原因另起炉灶写了这样一本莫名其妙的书。理论和材料都非常thin,全书像是几篇“制度史”论文勉强组合在一起,冠上一个epistemological shift/revolution的(时髦)标签(且不说清在国家治理上有没有这样一个福柯意义上的episteme的转换)。作者的观点竟然是,皇帝和朝廷对官僚阶层“积习”的抱怨(以及后世历史学家对此的引用)正是来源于state对各种信息的搜罗和处理。这就好比懂王说如果不检测就没那么多case,case多就是检测闹得呗。这书放在美国的中国研究内部也远远不如90年代前后那一大批研究清朝地方和中央的学者。再说都2022年了,讨论qing empire真的可以无视边疆和非汉语?
北美这几年较少见的清代制度史研究
有趣的想法,相当潦草的论述,不仅仅是准确与否的问题,而是本来就证据偏少。然而,我并不认为这是“编造”,叙事总是有偏的,这更像是基于不完善的资料提出了一种值得关注的猜想,虽然历史学的学科范式可能不同,但是这篇并不比杜赞奇或者福柯的历史书写在历史材料的严谨方面更成问题。我觉得有批评很必要,但是对待这类作品应该宽容,因为在猜想和视角启发上它们也是有价值的,就像当时陈猜想了关中集团也并没有自己去证实它,皇权不下县的表述更是多有争议。另一个问题是,这篇文章的详略其实不太得当,更像是面对对明清时期很不了解的读者写的,还带有隐隐的文化比较视角,但可惜她并没有把比较的参照系明确的说出来。
只说一点,作者想通过搜索和统计清实录中“案”这个词的多少来说明中央得到地方案件的信息数量。如果要统计,起码加上“案”这个词的每年出现的次数?乾隆在位60年,高宗实录“案”出现次数比他爹多不正常吗?而且“案”又非专指“案件”, “黄案”也统计在里面?多少有点离谱了。不用和叫魂,君主与大臣之类的制度史比较,差距有点太明显。
有想法的制度史。思维水准颇高于中国史领域的一般著作。关于信息收集的分析很新颖。史料确实比较单薄。
研究精神可嘉,只是史料运用实在混乱,有很多先入为主的偏见
Z-Library