This paper has above tried to make three arguments concerning the development of
the scholastic study of domestic Chinese politics: 1st, the field of the study of Chinese politics as a branch of political science is underdeveloped; 2nd, the major obstacle for the field’s
scientific development is political intervention; and,3rd, academic autonomy and
institutionalized professionalism are most needed for improving the scholarship of
political science discipline. In making the first argument, this paper has compared
the study of Chinese politics in China with the study of American politics in U.S, and found that the former is far behind the latter in terms of human
resources, courses offered, and academic publications
![[削除済みユーザ]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/695023b4efd563721d13716b1457bc73.png?d=identicon&mode=crop&r=PG&s=42)
As the latter enjoys an intellectual hegemony among various fields of political science in US, a country which keeps a global leading position in the research of ps, the study of Chinese politics in China is, by contrast, at best a research and educational field at its primitive stage of underdevelopment.
Meanwhile, a Party-state dominated enterprise of political writings has been
prosperous, and in the Chinese context, it is often, intentionally or not,
misunderstood as “political science.” This article has identified the intellectual and
political blurring between politics and science as a major obstacle for the studies of
Chinese politics from becoming a scientific, independent, and mature field
of scholarship.
かたや、党の機関が発行する政治論文は盛んに発行されており、意図的かそうでないかは別として、中国ではそれが「政治学」と勘違いされている。本稿は、政治そのものと科学としての政治学との境界線が、学術的、政治的にあいまいにされていることを明らかにし、そのことが、中国の政治研究が、科学的な、独立し成熟した学術分野への発展の妨げになっていると指摘してきた。
as this ambiguity allows a large space for political interventions into
academic studies.
For clarifying the boundaries between academic studies of politics
as political science and other publications on politics, the paper has tried to
distinguish four categories of political writings, and discovered two non-democratic
traditions that have been shaped in contemporary China overwhelming the study of
political science. From totalitarian China continues a tradition of official ideology
intervening in all sciences, so that Party-state leaders are authorities of political
thinking, and political indoctrination has been worked out to applaud and “study”
Party-state’s political statements.
科学としての政治学の研究と、政治に関する他の論文の境界線を明らかにするため、本稿は政治に関する論文を４つのカテゴリーに分け、現在の中国で生まれた、政治学を圧迫する２つの非民主主義的慣習を明らかにしている。１つは、全体主義国家たる中国で、政府の見解がすべての科学的研究に干渉し続け、以って党の指導者たちが政治思想を統括していること、および、党の政治見解を賞賛し「研究」することを政治的に教化していることである。
With the transition to market-authoritarian China, Party-state sponsored policy research arises, and this new
tradition also helps much to marginalize academic research on Chinese politics.
With both traditions, politics takes command of political writings, and political
inquiry, if there is any, is subordinated to state power and official ideology. As politics requires intellectual subordination but
refuses scientific scrutiny, and as the subject of political inquiry becomes the
master of political thinking, the study of politics as political science has no space to
grow. The second argument of this article is, therefore, that political intervention
hinders the development of political science in China.
これら２つの流れに伴い、政治論文が事実上政府の支配下に置かれ、仮に政治に関する質問があったとしても党の権力と理念が常に優位に立つことになる。 このような優劣関係が常にあり、科学的な調査が拒絶され、政治的思想の主体が政府への質問内容となると、科学としての政治学の発展の余地はない。従って、本稿の第二の論旨とは、政府の介入は中国における政治学の発展を妨げるという事である。
"the subject of political inquiry becomes the master of political thinking" の訳に苦労しました。
Thus comes the3rd conclusion: the improvement of political inquiry requires
academic autonomy& independence, which can be partially and
practically gained through the establishment of scholarly professionalism. The paper
suggests “open-minded independence of scholarship” as the direction toward which
political science in general and the study of Chinese politics in particular can be
promoted, as this spirit allows academic diversities within the discipline while
narrowing down the back door from which non-academic, primarily political,
interventions otherwise reach in. This argument emphasizes universities as the
institutional bases of modern academic research, and it further stresses professional
norms and standards.
Political science as the scientific political inquiry must follow
the “scientific” standards and make theoretical relevance to the scholarship of the
entire world’s academic community, not simply to a country with its characteristics,
and thus the scientific inquiry is an open process, and does not have national
boundaries, such as Western mathematics and Eastern mathematics, or American
physics and Chinese physics. In this sense, “indigenization” must
channel its energy into the development of the study of local politics, which is
Chinese politics for Chinese and in China.
As those examples such as the study of
Latin American politics has demonstrated, the hope to create a “Chinese school” of
political science lies here rather than with the rejection of foreign influences in
political studies.
From both the practical and epistemological points of view, the importance of
Chinese politics as a subject of social science is self-evident. For political science as
a discipline, the poverty of comprehension of Chinese politics undermines our
understandings of human political phenomena. For China studies as an interdisciplinary
endeavor, research on Chinese politics is an indispensable element for a
better grasping of China’s economic, social, and cultural developments.
現実論と認識論の両方の見地から、社会学のテーマとしての中国政治の重要性は自明です。学科としての政治科学にとっては、中国の政治への理解不足は、人間の政治的現象についての我々の知識を徐々に弱めます。学際的な試みとしての中国研究のためには、中国の政治の研究が、中国の経済的、社会的、および文化的な発展をよりよく把握するための欠くことのできない要素なのです。
From the perspective of practice, the rise of China has attracted worldwide attention, and
China’s unfinished economic, social and political transitions demand tremendous
intellectual support. The study of Chinese politics has been developing rapidly in
many countries, but so far, not in China.
This is a great irony, not for other
countries, but for the Chinese nation. Is that possible that one day the Chinese
language will become the primary language of academic publications on Chinese
politics? Is that possible that one day China’s homeland will become the major venue
where the study of Chinese politics is programmed, funded, conducted, and taught?
これは、他諸国にとってよりも、中国という国にとって、大いなる皮肉です。ある日、中国語が、中国の政治に関する学術的出版物の主要言語になっているということはありうるのでしょうか？ ある日、中国本国が、中国政治研究がプログラムされ、資金調達され、運用され、また教えられる主要な場になっているということはありうるのでしょうか？
Is that possible that China will contribute some influential ideas, concepts, theories,
and ‘schools” to the global study of Chinese politics and, more generally, to
comparative politics and the entire discipline of political science? This article’s
answer is optimistic and confident, but it maintains that the precondition must be met
first, which is: Chinese politics is a subject of critical thinking and independent
inquiry, rather than the guide of political thinking and “academic” research. Political
science is a science of politics; it is not the politics of science.
"institutional professionalism"は他に良い訳が見つからず、「組織全体のプロ意識」としましたが、少し自信がありません。