华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版) ›› 2026, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (3): 121-133.doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5579.2026.03.012

• 汉语人类学研究 • 上一篇    

理解“公地”的本土视角——关于谷苞调查案例的比较研究

王超文   

  • 接受日期:2026-04-26 出版日期:2026-05-15 发布日期:2026-05-30
  • 作者简介:王超文，中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所助理研究员（北京，100005）
  • 基金资助:
    国家社科基金一般项目“宗教人类学的中国元素探究”（项目编号：25BZJ005）及国家社科基金重点项目“汉语人类学百年学术史及理论回顾”（项目编号：23AMZ005）。

Understanding “Common Land” from an Indigenous Perspective：A Comparative Study of Gu Bao’s Investigation Cases

Chaowen Wang   

  • Accepted:2026-04-26 Online:2026-05-15 Published:2026-05-30

RichHTML

2

PDF

11

摘要：

自20世纪40年代的“魁阁”时期起，谷苞（1916—2012）在其学术生涯中主要成就了三个经典调查案例，即云南呈贡化城村、甘南卓尼藏区及南疆农村社会。这些涉及不同地域和人群的调查研究，共同的重要意义首先在于对地方传统组织的“发现”。谷苞或显或隐地揭示出，这些基层共同体的构成与土地制度、产权等民族学人类学传统议题相关，特别是与人—地关系相关联的共同体成员身份获得问题，使得这些案例具有明显的可比较性，而关于“公地”的描述和分析，则呈现了本土视角下“公”之意涵的多样性与一致性。以文本对读、学术脉络梳理及再研究的方式展开本土经典民族志案例比较，不仅有助于更完整地呈现中国内部的社会文化面貌，同时或可成就一种基于本土视角且超越特定地域和人群的人类学理论探索。

关键词: 谷苞, 人—地关系, 公地, 案例比较, 本土视角

Abstract:

Since the so-called “Kuige” period the 1940s, Gu Bao (1916–2012) accomplished three classic field research cases in his academic career: Huacheng Village in Chenggong, Yunnan, Zhuoni Tibetan Area in southern Gansu, and rural societies in southern Xinjiang. Covering different regions and ethnic groups, these studies are fundamentally significant in uncovering traditional local organizations. Explicitly or implicitly, Gu Bao revealed that the formation of grassroots communities is closely related to core anthropological themes, including land institutions and property rights. Notably, the acquisition of community membership based on human–land relations renders these cases comparable. Furthermore, his description and analysis of “common land” reflected both the diversity and coherence of understandings of “the common” from an indigenous perspective. Comparing these cases through textual analysis, academic contextualization and re-study can not only present China’s social and cultural landscapes in a more holistic way, but also promote indigenous theoretical innovation in anthropology beyond regional and ethnic boundaries.

Key words: Gu Bao, human–land relations, common land, case comparison, indigenous perspective