中文摘要：

改革前，在一元化体制高度亢进的背景下，一方面，慈善史研究长期缺位，这并不说明“进化史学”本身出现了“范式”危机，而说明常规科学赖以存在的公民社会基础根本无法形成，因此我们陷入了“前范式”危机，归根结底，就是不受约束的权力对学术严厉控制、肆意扭曲的制度危机；另一方面，国家化的“公益”动员也造成了灾难，这并不说明公益膨胀导致了私权利灾难，而说明任何现代权力／利主体（不管是公共权力还是私人权利）都没有存在的空间，因此我们陷入了特权带来的灾难，归根结底，就是国家主义膨胀下公益与私益“同归于尽”的制度灾难。改革后，随着一元化控制的松动，一方面，市场与社会的力量开始发育；另一方面，公益慈善史研究开始兴起，在海外汉学的影响下，逐渐被纳入到褒义“近代化”范式中去。从方法论的角度来看，学界对中国公益慈善史的研究大致可以划分为“人文主义一科学主义”、“停滞观一进化观”两对理想类型，以此为基础，形成了四种完全不同的研究倾向，即儒教慈善“停滞”观一西化式“现代化”论、传统慈善“进化”观一中国式“近代早期”论、民间公益的“公共领域论”以及“国家高度渗透社会论”。上述论争对我们的启示在于，首先，研究可以有偏好，制度不应存偏见．因此，争取多元化的制度环境，应当成为各派学者共同持守的底线。其次，主义可以拿来，问题还须土产，因此，应当从“走出前现代”而不是从“反思现代性”的本土问题背景出发，去看待中国公益慈善史的研究价值。再次，人性上的普世伦理与制度上的特殊差异是两个问题：一方面，应认同“普世人性无高下之分”，因此要反对那种把中国人与西方人作为两种类型的“文化比较一国民性优劣?

英文摘要：

Before reform of the unified system, on the one hand, the research in the history of charity has always been absence for a long time, it is not a ＂paradigm＂ crisis about ＂evolutionary learning＂, but a pre - paradigm crisis before normal science, namely, it is a system crisis of academic under power control. On the other hand, State -led ＂public interest＂ mobilization has also caused a disaster, it is not a ＂public interest＂ crisis, but a power disaster before subject of rights, namely, it is a system disaster of public and private interest perish together under power expansion. After the reform, as the loose of unified control, on the one hand, market and civil society have started to develop. On the other hand, study about the history of China public interest and philanthropy began to rise, and gradually have subordinated to gradually ＂modern paradigm＂ under the influence of overseas Chinese study. From the view of methodology, study about the history of China public interest and philanthropy can be roughly divided into two ideal types about ＂scientismhumanism＂ and ＂stagnant view -evolutionary view＂. On this basis, the academic circle has formed four tendencies, the first, Confucianism charity is stagnation, so it＇ s must through the westernized way to modernization; second, Confucianism charity is evolutionary, so has its own modernization; third, folk public interest organization has formed a ＂public sphere＂ ; fourth, Authoritarian country has highly seeped to society. The above argument to our enlightenment lies in the follow- ing respects. The first, researchers may have preference, but system should not be prejudiced, therefore, striving for diversified institutional environment is a common bottom line for scholars. Second, All sorts of ＂isms＂ can bring them here, but problem should be indigenous, therefore, we should comprehend research value on history of China public interest and philanthropy from the point of view of the ＂walking out of the pre - modern＂, and no