中美国家建构理论的方法论比较研究

发布时间：2018-01-25 08:40

本文关键词： 国家建构理论方法论比较研究　出处：《苏州大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：比较是政治学理论发展的重要动力之一。美国政治学对国家和国家建构理论的研究诞生于19世纪末20世纪初伍德罗威尔逊对国家理论的探索。此后,国家及相关的话题并没有成为美国政治学的中心热点问题,直到20世纪80年代开始兴起的“回归国家”浪潮,美国政治学对国家的研究和探索正式地迈入了“国家建构理论”的时代。从这一时期开始,美国国家建构理论研究的代表人物诸如查尔斯蒂利和弗朗西斯福山等对现代民族国家、国家职能和国家能力等方面进行了深入地探讨。同时,早期中国学者也开始了对现代国家问题的探讨,但是20世纪初的中国研究大多数是对西方理论的引入和总结,而对本土化的理论研究不足。相比美国,中国的国家建构理论研究始于上世纪90年代学者王绍光等对国家建构理论或者国家政权建设的引入。此后,中国学者也开始了一些本土化的研究。新时期,中国和美国的政治学研究进入了不同的发展轨道。方法论是人们认识世界和改造世界的重要手段和总结。中美学者研究国家和国家建构理论的过程和历史是截然不同的,这一定程度上是由方法论的流变而决定的。简而言之,美国的方法论经历了一个从定性研究霸权到定量研究霸权的过程,直到今天某种程度上两种研究方法能够在国家建构理论的研究框架和范式下共存。然而,中国的方法论很大程度上还是在一条腿走路,定性研究和定量研究在中国国家建构理论的理论范式下极其不平衡地发展,一定程度地妨碍了国家建构理论理论本身的发展。本文拟从历史规范主义和量化实证主义两个方面去比较和分析中国和美国在研究国家建构理论问题的方法论变迁,最终的结论是相比美国的理论发展,中国在研究和发展本土的国家建构理论理论研究应该重视对定量研究的培养和发展,这一方面是扩大了研究本身的视阈;另一方面也为增强本土国家建构理论理论的说服力。最后,从意义上讲,针对国家建构理论理论范式下的方法论比较研究为本国的国家建构理论理论研究和政治学研究提供一个借鉴和参考,也为新时期我国实现国家治理体系和治理能力的现代化提供一定的理论和智力支持。
[Abstract]:Comparison is one of the important driving forces in the development of political theory. The study of the theory of state and state construction in American politics was born in the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century Woodrow Wilson explored the theory of state. The country and related topics did not become a central hot issue in American politics until 1980s, when the wave of "return to the country" began to rise. The study and exploration of the state in American political science has entered the era of "the theory of national construction". The representative figures of American national construction theory, such as Charles Tilly and Francis Fushan, have deeply discussed the modern nation-state, the function of the state and the national capacity, etc. At the same time. Early Chinese scholars also began to explore the problems of modern countries, but in 20th century, most of the Chinese studies were the introduction and summary of western theories, but the localization of the theoretical research is insufficient. Compared with the United States. In -10s, Wang Shaoguang and other scholars introduced the theory of national construction or the construction of state power. Since then, Chinese scholars have also begun some research on localization. The study of political science in China and the United States has entered into different development tracks. Methodology is an important means and summary for people to understand and transform the world. The process and history of Chinese and American scholars studying the theory of national and national construction is very clear. Different. To some extent, this is determined by the evolution of methodology. In short, the methodology of the United States has experienced a process from qualitative research hegemony to quantitative research hegemony. To some extent today, the two methods of research can coexist in the framework and paradigm of the theory of national construction. However, China's methodology is still largely walking on one leg. The qualitative and quantitative studies have developed unevenly under the theoretical paradigm of Chinese national construction theory. To a certain extent, it hinders the development of the theory of national construction. This paper intends to compare and analyze the methodological changes in the study of national construction theory between China and the United States from the two aspects of historical normalism and quantitative positivism. Move. The final conclusion is that compared with the development of the American theory, China should pay attention to the cultivation and development of quantitative research in the research and development of the native theory of national construction, which on the one hand expands the perspective of the research itself; On the other hand, it is also to strengthen the persuasion of the theory of the construction of native countries. Finally, in the sense. The comparative study of methodology under the theoretical paradigm of national construction theory provides a reference for the theoretical research of national construction theory and political science. It also provides some theoretical and intellectual support for the modernization of national governance system and governance ability in the new period.
【学位授予单位】：苏州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D630;D771.2

【参考文献】