by Prasenjit Duara 杜赞奇

 2018年10月4日星期四

瑞典经济学家纲纳· 缪达尔（Gunnar Myrdal）因其扩大了的发展愿景而为人们所铭记。不幸的是，他还坚持一种观点，认为亚洲的民族主义在无知和迷信的宗教狂热的推动下，不利于发展，欧洲的民族主义更好: “在欧洲，民族主义尽管与浪漫主义有关，但其核心仍然是世俗和理性的。”本文阐述了我的观点，即民族主义与经济发展之间的关系比米尔达尔想象的更为复杂——不仅在亚洲，在全世界都是如此。

民族主义是一种复杂的关系

Nationalism can be seen as a complex relationship and, like most such relationships, people have to work hard to balance the tension between self and others. While many nations have succeeded in using nationalism to develop, this same nationalism has also generated forms of exclusivism and competition that make it hard to resolve shared global problems. Economic development is an important—but not the only—goal that nations must pursue. While some see the rise of nationalism, or you might even say, tribalism, as a sign of the end of the world, there is actually a form of self-interest that has increased growth.

民族主义可以被看作是一种复杂的关系，像大多数这样的关系一样，人们必须努力平衡自我和他人之间的紧张关系。虽然许多国家成功地利用民族主义来发展，但同样的民族主义也产生了排他主义和竞争的形式，使得解决共同的全球问题变得困难。经济发展是各国必须追求的一个重要但不是唯一的目标。虽然有些人认为民族主义的兴起，或者你甚至可以说，部落主义，是世界末日的标志，但实际上有一种自我利益的形式，促进了经济的增长。

Oscar Tang Professor of East Asian Studies and Director of the Global Asia Initiative - 杜克大学东亚研究教授、全球亚洲倡议-主任

亚洲的民族主义

Japan provides a surprising example. Meiji Japan’s top-down nationalism led to rapid expansion of its own development as well as to imperial expansion. While the cruelties of Japanese colonialism have rightfully led to its denunciation, for various reasons, the institutions and programs established during Japan’s rule in the colonies were well suited to modern development. After the war, countries such as Korea and Taiwan were able to adapt Japan’s top-down model, its colonial institutions and a virulent anti-communist nationalism that—when combined with the security and economic opportunity by the United States—led to rapid growth. By the late 1970s, this exclusive form of nationalism was replaced in both countries by a grass-roots nationalism that demanded more participatory modes of political and economic governance, leading to more balanced growth.

日本提供了一个令人惊讶的例子。明治时期日本自上而下的民族主义导致了自身发展的迅速扩张和帝国扩张。虽然日本殖民主义的残暴行径理所当然地导致了对它的谴责，但由于种种原因，日本在殖民地统治期间建立的机构和计划非常适合现代发展。战后，韩国和台湾等国家得以适应日本自上而下的模式、殖民体制和恶毒的反共民族主义，再加上美国提供的安全和经济机遇，导致了日本的快速增长。到1970年代后期，这种独特的民族主义形式在两国都被基层民族主义所取代，这种民族主义要求更多的政治和经济管理参与模式，从而导致更加平衡的增长。

Growth was likewise driven in the populous nation-states of China and India, despite their disparity in experiments with socialist forms of development and varied U.S. influence. Growth in both nations was enabled by powerful nationalist movements—especially revolutionary nationalism in China—premised on a more equitable contract with the population than the older imperialist order. Development, in other words, was encouraged by the inclusive nationalism that grew out of redistributive justice and the economic and political failures of the older system, and the rise of new classes that demanded change.

在人口众多的中国和印度等国，经济增长也同样得到了推动，尽管这两个国家在社会主义发展模式和美国的不同影响力方面存在差距。这两个国家的经济增长，都得益于强大的民族主义运动ーー尤其是中国的革命民族主义运动ーー其前提是与人民签订比较公平的契约，而不是较衰老的帝国主义秩序。换言之，包容性民族主义是由再分配正义、旧体制的经济和政治失败以及需要变革的新阶级的崛起而产生的，这些因素促进了发展。

In Southeast Asia, the rise of the nation paired with inclusion (in a Japan-centered regional economy) led to growth during the 1970s-1990s. Interdependence was cemented after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 as the region emerged with new ideas for shared economic security through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). While nationalist competition within ASEAN continues, it is still a major force for integration and growth.

在东南亚，国家的崛起伴随着包容性(在一个以日本为中心的区域经济中) ，导致了20世纪70-90年代的经济增长。1997年至1998年亚洲金融危机之后，相互依存关系得到巩固，东南亚国家联盟(东盟)提出了共同经济安全的新理念。虽然东盟内部的民族主义竞争仍在继续，但它仍然是一体化和增长的主要力量。

欧洲民族主义的两种形式

The earliest forms of nationalism in Europe were closely linked to imperialism and the twin forces of economic development and exclusion, which continued well into the twentieth century. As Eric Hobsbawm has pointed out, imperial expansion was justified by a nationalism that was more racist than rational. 

Hannah Arendt points out that imperialists were able to harness nationalism because they claimed to supersede the reality of internal national divisiveness and represent the glory of the nation. Through the World Wars and on into the post-war peace, this “glory” has expressed itself in both hate and inclusion.

欧洲最早形式的民族主义与帝国主义相伴而生，而且与经济发展和驱逐斗争的双重力量密切相关，这种情况一直持续到二十世纪。正如埃里克•霍布斯鲍姆指出的那样，基于民族主义兴起的帝国扩张，呈现更多的是种族主义，而不是理性主义。

阿伦特指出，帝国主义之所以能够驾驭民族主义，是因为他们声称能够超越国内民族分裂的现实，代表国家的荣耀。通过世界大战和战后的和平，这种“荣耀”表现在仇恨和包容两方面。 

How can these impacts be so profoundly different? Scholars often distinguish between two types of nationalism: an ethnic variety built on race, religion, and language, versus a civic nationalism, in which rights are granted to all citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, language, religion, or culture. German nationalism is, for example, often condemned as ethnic and exclusive, whereas Anglo-French nationalism is seen to be civic and inclusive. It is this the civic model that Myrdal had in mind when comparing Europe and South Asia, and it is this model that was dominant during the first few decades after the Second World War, embedded in the protocols of the United Nations and eventually leading to a notion of development that includes the eradication of poverty and higher standards of living for all.

为什么这些影响会有如此深远的不同呢？学者们经常区分两种类型的民族主义: 一种是建立在种族、宗教和语言基础上的民族主义，另一种是公民民族主义，这种民族主义赋予所有公民权利，不分种族、民族、语言、宗教或文化。例如，德国民族主义常常被谴责为种族主义和排他主义，而英法民族主义则被视为公民主义和包容主义。缪达尔在比较欧洲和南亚时所想到的正是这种公民民族主义模式，正是这种模式在第二次世界大战后的头几十年占据了主导地位，深深植根于联合国的议定书之中，并最终导致了包括消除贫穷和提高所有人的生活水平在内的发展概念。

Unfortunately, central to the modern history of nation-states is the alternation between capitalist expansion and a closing off of the national economy based on “the principle of social protection” but also on ethnic exclusivism and hostile nationalism. Today, aided by the volatility of the global economy, a narrower ethnic—sometimes even racist—vision of the nation has reasserted itself, which can be seen in the support of elected populist leaders around the globe.

不幸的是，民族国家现代史的核心是资本主义扩张与国民经济封闭体之间的交替变换，这种封闭不仅基于”社会保护原则”，而又基于族裔排斥和敌对民族主义。如今，在全球经济动荡的推动下，一个狭隘的民族(有时甚至是种族主义者)重新树立了自己对国家的看法，这可以从全球民选领导人的支持中看出来。

重要的是社会政治运动

These fluctuations in the tone of a particular form of nationalism are shaped by more than state-influenced macro-economic factors. Most international studies of economic development take the nation-state as a stable basis of their analysis. When comparing the economic achievements or failures of nations, analysts refer to the state’s aggregate indices and policies towards, say, capital formation, foreign debt, currency controls, or balance of trade. While indispensable, these analyses can miss how changes in sociopolitical forces transform development strategies and vice versa. Sociopolitical movements largely determine whether a nation turns inward or outward.

一种特定形式的民族主义基调的这些波动，不仅仅受到国家影响的宏观经济因素的影响。国际上大多数经济发展研究都把民族国家作为其分析的稳定基础。当比较各国的经济成就或失败时，分析家们指的是国家的总体指数和政策，例如，资本形成、外债、货币控制或贸易平衡。虽然这些分析是不可或缺的，但它们可能忽略了社会政治力量的变化是如何改变发展战略的，反之亦然。社会政治运动在很大程度上决定了一个国家是内向还是外向。

 The imaginary—and the movements they often give birth to—can be integrative or contentious. To take the most evident expressions of how imaginaries have reshaped society and the world, consider the difference between Maoist and contemporary China or, for that matter, between Nehru’s vision and contemporary India. While the broad goals of national development may remain, the frontiers of community inclusion, class configuration, and possibilities of nationalism have changed dramatically.

想象的东西ーー以及它们经常产生的运动ーー可以是综合性的，也可以是有争议的。想要用最明显的方式表达想象力是如何重塑社会和世界的，想想毛泽东时代和当代中国之间的差异，或者说，尼赫鲁的愿景和当代印度之间的差异。虽然国家发展的广泛目标可能仍然存在，但社区包容、阶级结构和民族主义的可能性，其边界都已经发生了巨大的变化。

The U.N.-sanctioned civic model of nationalism and stabilization of economic flows (under the Bretton Woods regime of global economic exchange) produced the breathing space for emergent nations to cultivate inclusive national models of development. Many erstwhile colonies, which were multi-ethnic, embraced nationalist leaders who developed policies principally of civic nationalism to accommodate minorities.

联合国认可的公民民族主义模式，以及在布雷顿森林全球经济交流体制下稳定经济流动，为新兴国家培育包容性国家发展模式提供了喘息空间。许多昔日的多族群殖民地拥护民族主义领导人，这些领导人制定的政策主要是以公民民族主义为基础来容纳少数民族。

In Asia, leaders such as Nehru and Sukarno of Indonesia and, later, Zhou Enlai of China, reiterated this commitment. They developed the principles of 

Panchasheela—a doctrine of non-interference in the internal affairs of others. Conflicts and pressures of the Cold War led to the movement’s dissipation, but the civic inclusivism upon which they were cultivated has had an enduring influence in the larger nations of Asia.

在亚洲，印度尼赫鲁和印尼的苏加诺以及后来的中国领导人周恩来重申了这一承诺。他们发展了 panchasheela 的原则ーー不干涉他国内政的原则。冷战时期的冲突和压力导致了这场运动的消散，但是这场运动所培养的公民包容主义在亚洲大国产生了持久的影响。

 这就是终点吗？

Nationalism in Europe and Asia has had many faces: revolutionary, top-down, anti-communist, participatory, civic, ethnic, and religious. The immediate post-war decades saw a largely inclusive civic model across much of the globe, permitting new nation-states to develop capabilities and resources without strong ethnocentric biases. The prevalence of the post-war inclusive model had much to do with the geopolitical circumstances of the victory of the Allied Forces in the Second World War, but it was also enabled by strong anti-imperialist national movements. They were also movements for the reduction of inequality and social justice.

欧洲和亚洲的民族主义有许多面孔: 革命性的、自上而下的、反共产主义的、参与性的、公民的、种族的和宗教的。在紧接着的战后几十年中，全球大部分地区出现了一种包容性很强的公民模式，允许新的民族国家在没有强烈的种族中心偏见的情况下发展能力和资源。战后包容性模式的盛行，与盟军在第二次世界大战中取得胜利的地缘政治环境有很大关系，但也得益于强大的反帝国主义民族运动。它们也是减少不平等和社会正义的运动。

More recently, the relationship between national political movements and economic development has taken a more sinister turn, exposing the tension between self and other that lies at the heart of all forms of nationalism. The global ascendance of neoliberal capitalism has been accompanied by the rise of chauvinistic, populist nationalism. The connection between nationalism and development appears to have come full cycle from a century ago, when its darkest forms drove the world into two global conflicts.

最近，国家政治运动和经济发展之间的关系发生了一个更加险恶的转变，暴露了“自我”和“他人”之间的紧张关系，这是所有形式的民族主义的核心。新自由主义资本主义在全球的崛起伴随着沙文主义和民粹的民族主义的兴起。民族主义与发展之间的联系似乎是从一个世纪前开始的，当时它最黑暗的形式使世界陷入两场全球性冲突。

Have we learned the necessary lessons? On the one hand, nationalism today works to protect against real or perceived predation, as well as to integrate the nation for competitive advantage. On the other, while economic globalization has made the world more interdependent, nationalism has made it difficult to translate this interdependence into cooperation, especially for problems such as the planetary environmental crisis.

我们吸取了必要的教训了吗？一方面，今天的民族主义致力于保护国家免受真实的或感知到的掠夺，以及整合国家以获得竞争优势。另一方面，虽然经济全球化使世界更加相互依存，但民族主义使得这种相互依存的关系难以转化为合作，特别是在诸如全球环境危机这样的问题上。