Robert Culp，Articulating Citizenship：Civic Education and Student Politics in Southeastern China，1912－1940．
Cambridge，MA：Harvard University Asia Center， Harvard University Press，2007．xvii＋382 pp．
罗伯特·卡尔普，《公民身份的表达：1912－1940 年中国东南部的公民教育与学生政治》，剑桥，马萨诸塞州：哈佛大学亚洲中心，哈佛大学出版社，2007 年。前言＋382 页

Only a minority of Chinese children attended modern public schools during the republican period，and those who managed to graduate from middle schools and normal schools automatically formed a social and cultural elite．Many，though not all，came from elite families，at least elite enough to support a child through long years of economically non－productive schooling．Yet given the social changes underway by the early twentieth century，and given the new content and institutional setting of education，the school graduates did not so much represent the reproduction of an elite as the creation of a new group not only marked by a certain social cohesion based on shared experience but also marked by possession of cultural capital based on hitherto inaccessible modern knowledge．In this important monograph，Culp considers these social and intellectual issues in some detail but is even more interested in how politics was conceived，shaped，and practiced by educators and students．
在民国时期，只有少数中国儿童上现代公立学校，而那些成功从中学和师范学校毕业的学生自动形成了一个社会和文化精英。许多人，尽管不是全部，来自精英家庭，至少足够精英以支持一个孩子经过漫长的经济非生产性学习。然而，考虑到到 20 世纪初正在进行的社会变革，以及教育的新内容和制度环境，学校毕业生并不完全代表精英的再生产，而是创造了一个新的群体，这个群体不仅以基于共同经验的某种社会凝聚力为特征，还以基于迄今为止无法获得的现代知识的文化资本为特征。在这本重要的专著中，Culp 详细考虑了这些社会和知识问题，但更感兴趣的是政治是如何被教育工作者和学生构思、塑造和实践的

Focusing on secondary schools in the lower Yangzi region such as those in Nanjing，Shanghai，and Yangzhou，and using a wide variety of sources－from textbooks and school regulations to memoirs and interviews－Culp argues that
聚焦于南京、上海和扬州等长江下游地区的中学，Culp 通过使用各种来源——从教科书和学校规章到回忆录和访谈——认为

＂lessons about national identity，political participation，and the social order．．．reinforced one another and promoted a coherent conception of republican citizenship，characterized by direct participation and practical action for the nation＇s welfare＂（p．9）．Culp examines what students were supposed to be learning and also school－based daily practices and body training such as student self－government organizations，reading clubs，outreach efforts like street dramas and literacy schools， and civic rituals like saluting the flag and bowing to the portrait of Sun Yat－sen 孫逸仙．Culp concludes，＂many lower Yangzi region students sought to associate themselves with the ideal of the active citizen，which was produced through the articulation of discourses of political participation，social order，and national membership，as a way to claim social privilege and political agency＂（p．11）． Educators sometimes promoted student civic action or，especially under the Nationalists in the 1930s，urged students to stay in the classroom；regardless，students could draw strategically on an array of theoretically sanctioned activities for their own purposes．Female students in particular received double messages about their inside and outside roles，but，in Culp＇s view，were given means to prepare themselves for ＂independent personhood＂through civic action for sake of nation．
“关于国家认同、政治参与和社会秩序的课程……相互强化，促进了一种连贯的共和公民身份观念，以直接参与和为国家福利的实际行动为特征”（第 9 页）。Culp 考察了学生应该学习的内容，以及基于学校的日常实践和身体训练，如学生自我管理组织、阅读俱乐部、街头戏剧和扫盲学校等外展活动，以及敬礼和向孙逸仙肖像鞠躬等公民仪式。Culp 总结道：“许多长江下游地区的学生寻求与积极公民的理想联系起来，这一理想是通过政治参与、社会秩序和国家成员身份的论述而形成的，作为一种声称社会特权和政治代理的方式”（第 11 页）。教育工作者有时会促进学生的公民行动，或者在 1930 年代国民党统治下，敦促学生留在教室；无论如何，学生可以战略性地利用一系列理论上被认可的活动来实现自己的目的。尤其是女学生在内外角色方面收到双重信息，但在 Culp 看来，她们获得了通过为国家的公民行动来准备“独立人格”的手段

Ultimately，Culp is making an argument about modern Chinese views of political identity and the public sphere．In this view，Chinese citizenship was less about liberal rights－based democracy familiar to the contemporary West and more about civic republicanism：participation，not representation．I find this argument largely convincing．A vision of active republican citizenship clearly informed the views of such creators of the new Republic＇s educational system as Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培． Culp further suggests that we see a version of this vision right through the Maoist years．＂When viewed in longer historical context，Mao－era civic action in the PRC can be seen as the culmination of early twentieth－century Chinese elites＇efforts to
最终，Culp 对现代中国的政治身份和公共领域的看法提出了论点。在这种观点中，中国公民身份与当代西方熟悉的基于自由权利的民主关系不大，而更多地与公民共和主义相关：参与，而非代表。我发现这个论点在很大程度上是令人信服的。积极的共和公民身份的愿景显然影响了新共和国教育系统的创始人之一蔡元培的观点。Culp 进一步建议我们在毛泽东时代也能看到这一愿景的一个版本。“从更长的历史背景来看，毛泽东时代在中华人民共和国的公民行动可以被视为二十世纪初中国精英努力的高潮。”
書 評  书评
construct citizens who would be publicly engaged" (p.288). Culp specifically argues that in the 1920 s, then, Communists and Nationalists competed for student support through political programs designed to encourage and harness political action as intrinsically proper, not merely a tactical response to specific conditions. However, as Culp also shows, the 1928-1930 period saw a major change as the Nationalists brought education (and political activities generally) under much stricter controls. To me, this suggests that Culp’s emphasis on civic republicanism has to be qualified: as “participation” becomes ritualized and routinized, the significance of political activity is demeaned and increasingly divorced from anything that can truly be called republican. True, the activist republican ideal continued to inform Nationalist ideology (as well as anti-Nationalist resistance), but the scope of participation was in fact increasingly restricted under first the Nationalists and then the Communists. The “masses” in Maoism are not the ideal of the active citizen of republican ideology. As well, I would argue that “liberal democracy” and “civic republicanism” share the concept of rights-duties, for all their differences. Culp does note the possibility of diminishing returns to ritualization (including ritualization of protests), but seems to blur symbolic citizenship and meaningful political participation (pp. 219-220). Nonetheless, Culp’s emphasis on the concept of participation in the educational sphere and Chinese political culture more broadly has the distinct advantages of reminding Western observers both that not all political behavior can be reduced to nationalism (even if nationalism shapes it) and that the Chinese were and are forging new political forms with their own claims to justice and legitimacy, not merely imitating Western forms.
“构建能够公开参与的公民”（第 288 页）。Culp 特别指出，在 1920 年代，共产党和国民党通过旨在鼓励和利用政治行动的政治项目竞争学生支持，这种行动被视为内在的正当行为，而不仅仅是对特定条件的战术反应。然而，正如 Culp 所展示的，1928-1930 年期间发生了重大变化，国民党对教育（以及政治活动）实施了更严格的控制。在我看来，这表明 Culp 对公民共和主义的强调需要被限定：随着“参与”变得仪式化和常规化，政治活动的意义被贬低，并越来越脱离任何可以真正称之为共和的事物。诚然，激进的共和理想继续影响国民党的意识形态（以及反国民党的抵抗），但参与的范围实际上在国民党和随后共产党统治下越来越受到限制。毛主义中的“群众”并不是共和意识形态中积极公民的理想。 此外，我认为“自由民主”和“公民共和主义”在权利与义务的概念上是有共同之处的，尽管它们存在差异。Culp 确实提到仪式化（包括抗议的仪式化）可能会出现收益递减的可能性，但似乎模糊了象征性公民身份和有意义的政治参与（第 219-220 页）。尽管如此，Culp 对教育领域和更广泛的中国政治文化中参与概念的强调，具有明显的优势，提醒西方观察者，政治行为并非都可以简化为民族主义（即使民族主义影响着它），而且中国人曾经并仍在创造新的政治形式，提出自己的正义和合法性主张，而不仅仅是模仿西方形式。

Culp shows that students were taught that China was a unified, sovereign territory that was under attack and needing the support of all its citizens; citizens were the interdependent cells of a functionally integrated organic society. History,
Culp 表示，学生们被教导中国是一个统一的、主权的领土，正受到攻击，需要所有公民的支持；公民是一个功能上整合的有机社会的相互依存的细胞。历史，

geography，and civics textbooks thus treated citizens as＂horizontally connected，＂ more or less culturally homogenous，and certainly members of a cohesive territorial unit．Indeed，in Culp＇s view，even more than race，territory provided＂rhetorically the most powerful and conceptually the most stable of national visions for twentieth－century China＂（p．92）．Civics textbooks changed more：from a Confucian－based view of the state as the family－marked by distinct role hierarchies and duties－writ large，to the more liberal egalitarianism of the 1920s，and on to the statism，partification，and Confucian revivalism of the Nationalists．
地理和公民教材因此将公民视为“横向连接的”，或多或少是文化上同质的，当然是一个凝聚的领土单位的成员。事实上，在 Culp 看来，甚至比种族更重要的是，领土提供了“在修辞上是最强大、在概念上是对二十世纪中国的国家愿景最稳定的”（第 92 页）。公民教材的变化更大：从以儒家为基础的将国家视为家庭的观点——以明显的角色等级和责任为特征——扩展到 1920 年代更自由的平等主义，再到国民党的国家主义、党派化和儒家复兴主义

Still as Culp shows，students enthusiastically organized themselves with and without official approbation．Student self－government emphasized self－control， sacrifice，group discipline，and participation．Whether they were citizens－in－training or citizens，students claimed a voice in running their lives and their schools，and in local and national affairs as well．Culp cites the support for students on the part of liberal educators；he also notes the roots of participatory citizenship＂in evolving patterns of local－elite management that themselves grew out of a long statecraft tradition of Confucian discourse＂（p．278）．One might also ask if student self－government owed anything to late imperial associational practices such as huiguan（會館）．
正如 Culp 所展示的，学生们热情地组织自己，无论是否获得官方认可。学生自我管理强调自我控制、牺牲、团体纪律和参与。无论他们是培训中的公民还是公民，学生们都声称在管理自己的生活和学校，以及在地方和国家事务中拥有发言权。Culp 引用了自由教育者对学生的支持；他还指出，参与性公民身份的根源“在于地方精英管理的演变模式，这些模式本身源于儒家话语的长期治国传统”（第 278 页）。人们也可以问，学生自我管理是否与晚清的社团实践如会馆有任何关系

Citizenship was not（merely）an ideology but a matter of performance and training the body．The scouting movement makes an interesting case study of how class and gender were simultaneously transgressed and reinforced．Boys were taught sewing and girls military drill；yet，in the end，boys were to be soldiers and girls nurses．Lessons on etiquette and hygiene contributed to class distinctions even while citizenship was supposed to transcend such distinctions．Public ceremonies made students highly visible participants in the national political culture，whether in more or less spontaneous protests or in government－sponsored civic rituals such as National
公民身份不仅仅是一种意识形态，而是表现和训练身体的问题。童子军运动是一个有趣的案例研究，展示了阶级和性别如何同时被突破和强化。男孩们被教导缝纫，女孩们则学习军事操练；然而，最终，男孩们要成为士兵，女孩们要成为护士。礼仪和卫生的课程在公民身份本应超越这些区别的同时，助长了阶级差异。公共仪式使学生成为国家政治文化中高度可见的参与者，无论是在更自发的抗议活动中，还是在政府赞助的公民仪式中，如国庆

Day celebrations．Culp shows how particular strands of civic republicanism fed into the state－building and mass mobilization efforts of Chinese political elites after the 1920s：especially the ideal of selfless contribution to the common good．Students claimed to be the＂core elements＂（中間分子）of Chinese society，and Culp also brings out the tensions between the condescension and egalitarianism of the students． At the same time，I wish he had explored a little further whether civic republicanism necessarily entailed this tension，which，if so，might help explain its degeneration under the Nationalist and Communist periods．
日庆祝活动。Culp 展示了公民共和主义的特定思想如何在 1920 年代后影响中国政治精英的国家建设和大规模动员努力：特别是无私贡献于公共利益的理想。学生们声称自己是中国社会的“核心元素”（中间分子），Culp 也揭示了学生们之间的优越感与平等主义之间的紧张关系。同时，我希望他能进一步探讨公民共和主义是否必然包含这种紧张关系，如果是的话，这可能有助于解释其在国民党和共产党时期的退化

Students were but one of many groups claiming citizenship，as Culp points out， along with professionals，small business owners，workers，and others；this valuable monograph enriches our understanding of the political culture of the Republic by demonstrating the central role played by students in daily political life，not only in periods of protest，which were in fact just the tips of the iceberg of student politicization．Unfortunately，the monograph lacks a glossary and characters are not provided for the bibliography，but it does benefit from nice illustrations from original texts and a useful bibliographical essay that shows the way for further research on this important topic．
学生只是众多声称公民身份的群体之一，正如 Culp 所指出的，还有专业人士、小企业主、工人等；这本有价值的专著通过展示学生在日常政治生活中所发挥的核心作用，丰富了我们对共和国政治文化的理解，不仅是在抗议时期，实际上这些抗议只是学生政治化冰山一角的表面。不幸的是，这本专著缺乏词汇表，参考书目中没有提供角色，但它受益于原始文本中的精美插图和一篇有用的书目论文，为进一步研究这一重要主题指明了方向