更大的不列颠 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

在19世纪的最后几十年间，诸多英国思想家围绕如何使大英帝国以好的方式组织起来展开了一系列辩论，《更大的不列颠：帝国与世界秩序的未来（1860-1900）》正是对这些思想的梳理、分析与总结。在当时，很多人认为，解决时代危机的答案是构建“更大的不列颠”，即将英国本土与澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰和南部非洲这些英国的殖民地统合为一个整体。思想家们就如何构建“更大的不列颠”提出了形形色色的方案，既包括创建一个广布全球的民族国家这种极具野心的方案，也包括强化殖民地与母国现有联系这种较为实际的方案。但所有这些理论都是被一种思想上的震荡所激发的，而造成这种震荡的原因则是当时民主政治的发展、英国全球霸权面临的挑战，以及全球合作与沟通的全新可能——这种新形势也预示了当今关于全球化的争论。作者分析了当时这场内容丰富但后来却为人忽略的大讨论，检视了一大批思想家是怎样构想出这样一个庞大的“盎格鲁-撒克逊政治共同体”的。通过探索这些思想家对于全球态势、时空变迁、国家地位、帝国精神、未来趋势的思考，以及关于希腊、罗马和美国的观念在理论上所发挥的关键作用，作者解读了维多利亚时代晚期政治思想和智识生活的重要内容。

缩写

1 导言：构建更大的不列颠

帝国话语的边界：想象更大的不列颠

更大的不列颠与帝国联邦：同一主题的不同变奏

帝国与意识形态

本书概要

2 全球竞争与民主

均势：全球威胁与帝国回应

民主与帝国的道义经济

移民与社会问题

更大的不列颠的激进愿景

3 时间、空间与帝国

“永恒法”：帝国与距离的变迁

变动中的自然（约1830-1870）

科学乌托邦时代的帝国政治思想（约1870-1900）

重塑全球政治想象

4 帝国、民族与国家

转向联邦制

国家地位与帝国

希里与“世界国家

种族与民族

5 宪法的政治学

作为美德的含混

帝国爱国精神与宪法

公民帝国主义

弗劳德与“大洋国共荣体”

6 联合的使徒

人性之爱：走向新的“政治宗教”

民族世界主义的政治神学

逐渐阴郁的英格兰心智

帝国联邦的必然性

联合的歧义：印度与爱尔兰

7 正义的先知

殖民地解放与盎格鲁-撒克逊民族的“光荣未来”

帝国与性格

宗教与自由

印度、爱尔兰与专制的必然性

8 从古代到现代

古人的功能

帝国的终结：两种模型

关于新颖性

回到未来

9 展望美国

未来的模式：作为样板的美国

规模问题：作为竞争者的美国

……

10 结论：更大的不列颠的系谱

参考书目

致谢

索引

[英]邓肯·贝尔（Duncan Bell），英国剑桥大学历史学博士，现任剑桥大学政治思想与国际关系学教授，2021年被选为英国学术院院士。主要研究领域为政治学理论、思想史和国际关系，尤其关注19世纪以来的国际关系思想史和帝国理论。他新出版的作品为《种族的梦幻世界：帝国和英美的乌托邦命运》。

史庆，北京大学法学院法律史专业博士。

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：更大的不列颠在线阅读

在线听书地址：更大的不列颠在线收听

在线购买地址：更大的不列颠在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

在19世纪的最后几十年间，诸多英国思想家围绕如何使大英帝国以好的方式组织起来展开了一系列辩论，《更大的不列颠：帝国与世界秩序的未来（1860-1900）》正是对这些思想的梳理、分析与总结。在当时，很多人认为，解决时代危机的答案是构建“更大的不列颠”，即将英国本土与澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰和南部非洲这些英国的殖民地统合为一个整体。思想家们就如何构建“更大的不列颠”提出了形形色色的方案，既包括创建一个广布全球的民族国家这种极具野心的方案，也包括强化殖民地与母国现有联系这种较为实际的方案。但所有这些理论都是被一种思想上的震荡所激发的，而造成这种震荡的原因则是当时民主政治的发展、英国全球霸权面临的挑战，以及全球合作与沟通的全新可能——这种新形势也预示了当今关于全球化的争论。作者分析了当时这场内容丰富但后来却为人忽略的大讨论，检视了一大批思想家是怎样构想出这样一个庞大的“盎格鲁-撒克逊政治共同体”的。通过探索这些思想家对于全球态势、时空变迁、国家地位、帝国精神、未来趋势的思考，以及关于希腊、罗马和美国的观念在理论上所发挥的关键作用，作者解读了维多利亚时代晚期政治思想和智识生活的重要内容。

• 作者：芻狗 发布时间：2020-10-23 14:10:40

  作者以實事求是的中肯態度，寫了一本相當有詩意的書

• 作者：陈钢 发布时间：2023-01-15 17:39:28

  过于学术不适合普通读者。

• 作者：矛矛虫 发布时间：2023-04-19 22:11:18

  研究了后维多利亚时代有关联合王国与其所谓移民殖民地潜在联合的争论。这意味着要融合包括帝国、国家、联邦、民主和自由在内的众多政治概念，然而这些概念通常被在相反的意义上激烈争论甚至对立。用联邦制来构建更大不列颠这一想象共同体最终失败，但时至今日仍然存在着一种建立在帝国遗产上的欲求，而美国站在这种愿景的中心。

• 作者：陈主任 发布时间：2023-01-04 10:43:41

  翻译非常流畅，内容也有启发，考虑到21世纪以来关于更大的美利坚的讨论以及近年来关于更大的塞里斯的某种讨论，其含义令人深省。同时想不到我竟然是第一个写评论的人

• 作者：弥之 发布时间：2024-04-27 15:20:29

  于国图避雨时。瞎翻了两页，被西方史学家拗口的术语说法弄得头昏脑胀，难怪博物馆学会变成今天这样。

• 作者：Lee 发布时间：2023-03-23 16:11:58

  在不列颠治世下，英国思想家流露出了对国家与世界秩序想象的危机意识。

• 贴一张书评

  作者：思甬苑 发布时间：2011-06-23 11:31:42

  Miles Taylor, review of The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World Order, 1860-1900, (review no. 709)

  URL:

  https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/709

           Duncan Bell’s book comes with an intriguing picture on its front cover: Gustave Doré’s famous 1860 depiction of a New Zealander perched on a broken arch of London Bridge sketching the ruins of St Paul’s and its environs. The image, derived from an essay by Thomas Babington Macaulay, captures much of the Victorian premonition and anxiety about empire. Schooled on the classics and hardened in the tropics, successive generations of colonial statesmen and commentators in the 19th century learned to hope for little and fear much worse from the possession of far-flung dominion and settlement. Their ultimate nightmare was that the fate of Rome would catch up with Britain, that is, unbridled expansion overseas would precipitate the collapse of civilisation at the metropole. So fashionable had this Gibbonseque trope of ‘Macaulay’s New Zealander’ become by the 1860s that, according to David Skilton, the satirical magazine Punch called for a proclamation banning its use, along with other proverbial phrases such as ‘the Thin End of the Wedge’ and ‘the British Lion’. As arresting as Doré’s lithograph is, it does seem a slightly odd choice for Duncan Bell’s study, which is devoted to a series of Victorian writers and thinkers who developed a wholly positive vision of empire, looking forward to global peace and order, rather than back to the gloomy lessons of the past. No such problems are presented by the back cover. Gathered there are a series of top scholarly names from both sides of the Atlantic endorsing the book, which has been eagerly anticipated. Derived from his Cambridge PhD thesis of 2004, and trailed in a series of articles and edited collections, The Idea of Greater Britain is one the first major studies of Victorian intellectual life with the subject of the British empire left in, rather than out. Joint winner of the coveted Royal Historical Society’s Whitfield Prize, singled out for praise by Stephen Howe in the Independent, and already frequently cited in new work in the field, it is not just the cover, but the contents of this book, which demand to be noticed.

          The book is both monograph and manifesto. Bell’s main research task is to resuscitate the somewhat neglected arguments of those Victorians who idealised and proselytised a ‘Greater Britain’, that is a closer union of Britain and the settlement colonies. But there is a larger purpose too. Bell calls for historians of political thought in the 19th century to follow their fellow scholars in earlier periods and take empire seriously. He contends that the Victorian canon of thinkers – so skilfully analysed by, among others, John Burrow, Stefan Collini and Peter Clarke – has escaped the sort of closer scrutiny which the imperial turn has inspired in intellectual history especially of the 17th and 18th centuries (for example, in the work of Anthony Pagden and David Armitage). By themselves, these two stated purposes are reasonable enough. Although the ‘Greater Britain’ tendency in the 19th century has not been entirely obscured – as Bell generously notes, Ged Martin, Michael Burgess and John Kendle have all written about it extensively – it has tended to be treated as an annex of imperial and commonwealth history rather than part of the main body of the Victorian vision. Moreover, its proponents – Thomas Carlyle, E. A. Freeman and J. A. Froude to name a few – have been seen at best as armchair statesmen, and at worst, pedlars of Anglo-Saxon racism. There is also a case for seeing them as misguided romantics, about which Jonathan Mendilow, not cited by Bell, has written. It is good to have the revisionist case put so forcefully, as Bell does so well. And the grander project is welcome too. Whilst 19th-century intellectual historians have not shied away from looking at the connections between India and Victorian political thought (e.g. both James and John Stuart Mill, and Henry Maine), the conceptual place of empire has not been considered in the same way as other Victorian concerns and shibboleths such as liberty, democracy, poverty, the state, or the economy. It is as if, to paraphrase Sir John Seeley, one of the heroes of this study, the British empire was acquired in a fit of absence of thought. Both Bell’s case-study of the Greater Britain movement and his wider claims about the limited horizons of Victorian political thought as a discipline are thus worth considering seriously, separately and in more detail. There is much to commend with both, although there are legitimate concerns about how far the case-study of Greater Britain can really be used to open up new vistas in the intellectual history of the Victorian era.

         Unsurprisingly, given his Cambridge provenance, Bell takes a ‘meaning and context’ approach to the idea of ‘Greater Britain’. Instead of separating out Sir John Seeley and his forebears as belonging to a tradition of imperial and commonwealth historiography in which they pass the baton onto later scholars such as A. B. Keith and W. K. Hancock and eventually to the modern era revolutionised by Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher, Bell places them and their preoccupations back in the mid-19th century. This has certain advantages. It becomes clear, for example, that faith in white empire overseas grew out of concern over the dangers and perils of democracy at home. The aftermath of the 1848 revolutions, Liberal ‘little Englander’ calls for less colonies not more in the 1860s, and an expanded franchise and the advent of socialism in the 1880s all led to an upsurge in support for settlement empire as an antidote. Alongside this, the perception of Britain’s geopolitical vulnerability across a globe increasingly dominated by Russian, French and then American and German expansion – all states with federal or imperial structures – stimulated what Bell calls ‘one of the most audacious political projects of modern times’ (p. 11), that is, a global Anglo-Saxon polity. There is obviously something to this: in the 1880s in particular, as other historians have shown, Liberal Unionism and radical Conservatism in Britain veered off in an imperial direction, specifically over the prospect of Irish home rule, but with many of these wider worries in the background. However, Bell does tend to apply his background strokes with such a broad brush, giving us a sense of the spirit of the times, without offering specific evidence of links between particular texts and the immediate events which surrounded their composition. Sometimes the texts are taken from the beginning of the period under study, sometimes at the end. The effect for this reviewer was to be less convinced by the ‘meaning and context’ approach than is usually the case.

            It is helpful too, to see advocates for Greater Britain as engaged in a debate with each other, rather than with posterity – and this is another advantage of the contextual approach adopted by Bell. Between the publication of Goldwin Smith’s ‘Empire’ letters in the Daily News in 1862–3, through Charles Dilke’s Greater Britain in 1868, to Seeley’s Expansion of England of 1883 and JA Froude’s Oceana of 1886, we have a remarkably rich and diverse conversation over two decades on the shape of empire. Into the mix Bell adds the rise and fall of the Imperial Federation League (IFL, est.1884), and a host of minor publicists and enthusiasts, all taking part in an intense moment of heightened interest in white dominion overseas. In a nuanced manner, Bell shows a range of positions adopted. Some were for the racial union of Anglo-Saxon peoples pure and simple, or pur sang certainly, some defined nationhood in terms of culture and religion. Others were ‘scientific utopians’, fuelled by a techno-triumphalist belief that the contraction of ‘time and space’ through the telegraph and the steam-ship was making possible the creation of a union of non-contiguous states. Some, albeit in the minority, went as far as to envisage India included in the vision. For Bell, the impact of this debate is unquestionable. It was a ‘pressing topic’ (p. 18) and a ‘popular rallying cry’ (p. 31). Such claims are difficult to confirm or contest, for we are offered no reliable means of quantifying the impact of the movement, for example, through measuring the incidence of the phrase ‘Greater Britain’ in the newspapers and periodicals of the period, or in Hansard’s parliamentary debates, or at election time. The principal thinkers discussed came straight out of the standard liberal canon of Victorian public moralists, and it is their influence as opinion-makers more generally rather than advocates of empire that is undeniable. At times, Bell himself doesn’t seem totally convinced of their impact. In the introduction we are told that his case-studies were ‘not sophisticated’ thinkers and lacked the ‘philosophical skills’ (p. 21) required to turn people’s minds , that the IFL was not ‘taken seriously’ (p. 15) by politicians (except Lord Rosebery, who although later Prime Minister was not always very serious), and that the movement was not really ‘representative’ of wider attitudes (p. 26).

           Perhaps one way out of this gulf between Bell’s expansive claims for his topic, and his more cautious conclusions about the impact of ‘Greater Britain’ would have been to widen his range of reference beyond the Anglo-centric thinkers and activists discussed here. British radicals and later on socialists do not feature very much, although historians have always been (sometimes uncomfortably so) aware of their pro-pax Britannica sentiments. Those caught up in the industry of white settlement: agents, advertisers and speculators – that culture of ‘boosterism’ about which James Belich has written so persuasively – might have been discussed in this book. And the idealists who imagined ‘Greater Britain’ – the red-pen wielding cartographers, statisticians, explorers and geographers – merited mention. Moreover, the neo-British world features very little. It cannot have escaped Bell’s attention that some of the most eloquent and influential advocates of ‘Greater Britain’ were not to be found in the metropole, but in Canada, the Cape, Australasia, and even India. This broader context for analysing the promotion and reception of ideas about imperial union might have helped answer more fully the question of movement’s impact. The book could profitably have been less about the canon, and more about the idea.

           If Bell is somewhat contradictory and elusive on context, he proves much more sure-footed on meaning. At the core of the book are three excellent case-studies – of Seeley, Goldwin Smith, and (though at less length) of Froude. Here the description becomes much thicker. On Seeley, Bell follows others in rooting the Regius Professor’s expanded notion of English identity in his liberal Anglicanism. But he also makes clear in ways others have not the Hegelian and anti-Napoleonic idea of a ‘cosmopolitan nationalism’ in Seeley’s work – anti-imperial in intent, imperial in effect. Seeley was ‘Greater Britain’’s great catch – W. T. Stead thought he should be put in charge of a college teaching the value of a global British identity. However, the movement was never faraway from easily misunderstood (especially by posterity) Anglo-Saxon supremacist discourse, with which Goldwin Smith increasingly became associated. Bell shows how Goldwin Smith was critical of schemes for formal constitutional union – and in that sense was a leading radical little Englander and later pro-Boer – insisting that ‘Greater Britain’ be based on ‘blood and sentiment’, and for such reasons could not include India and Ireland, which were fit only for vice-regal institutions. Froude only gets passing coverage, but interestingly allows Bell to develop the point that a work such as Oceana might be seen as a late flowering of the ‘civic humanist’ tradition, with the scheme of imperial federation as a rearticulation of the classical republican community – albeit with a monarch at its head. Here some consideration might have been given to statesmen out in the field such as the 4th Earl of Carnarvon or Sir Henry Bartle Frere who both in India and southern Africa proved strong proponents of systems of federation, including non-European representation. Indeed, Bell does not really tell us enough about what practical form ‘Greater Britain’ might have taken. He notes at length the inability of imperial enthusiasts to adopt a sufficiently persuasive language and recognises how the sovereignty of Westminster might be imperilled by federal government. Nonetheless, schemes for imperial parliaments with colonial representatives (either in the Commons, or more commonly by the end of the century, in the Lords) as well as a more active imperial monarchy, were frequently advanced during the period, and were worth noting more.

   

            Towards the end of this ambitious book, Bell returns to the scenario depicted by Macaulay’s New Zealander, and argues that over the course of the 19th century, advocates of ‘Greater Britain’ became less haunted by the fate of classical empires. Instead, they looked to north America (in Goldwin Smith’s case, he of course ended up there). With its waspish credentials, and never-ending frontier, America offered a fantasy of a future Anglo-Saxon yeomanwealth. Again, there is evidence for and against which be might have been discussed further. Not all of his generation followed James Bryce in seeing America as the new commonwealth. Many liberals opposed American new imperialism in Cuba and the Philippines, were not wholly supportive of westwards expansion, and did not welcome the corporate turn in American capitalism. For all that, however, via the Round Table movement after 1902 and the Cliveden set between the wars this aspiration helped forged the Anglo-American special relationship, and it is fitting that Bell closes his bold but not always convincing account with the goal of global federation passing to the continent where it has remained ever since.

• 值得推荐

  作者：缺牙三 发布时间：2014-10-20 17:11:32

  我一直也是比较喜欢看国外心理学教材，觉得智慧不说，还有对读者的关照，意思说得透。这本教材有国内教材的特点，显得深入全面，而且还高大上，但读起来不亲切，罗列了各方面研究，但许多是推论，没有注重方法的传播。

  但是仔细阅读，还是觉得值得推荐，原因是：

  1、以情绪为主题 由于情绪的主观性，科学研究比较困难，所以这个重要的主题被忽略了。掌握情绪理论是好多心理学问题的钥匙。作者一直关注这个方面的研究，也在了切实的相关工作。算是中国情绪研究的一流行家了吧。

  2、以进化论为基础 这个理认基础是我所认同的。情绪研究如果没有这个理论前提，恐怕方向会出问题。作者这方面是明确的。

  3、相关研究罗列 如果对这方面感兴趣，可以顺着去看相关著作。

  4、对于认为错误的观点，直接说出来了。这在国外心理学教材中比较少有。虽然可能有失轻率，但了直接了当。

  5、有这样的句子：中国这方面研究几乎是空白。

  6、其实还是有许多干货，比如对杏仁体双回路的描述，扩展开来可以写半本《情商》。只是为了全面描述，只几节就结了。

  7、帮我打通了一个思考关键环节：正性情绪的作用有助于思维灵活等，所以人应该选择性的积极，可以提高效率。情绪心理学与积极心理学的联系在此被打通。

  所以，对这方面感兴趣的同学一定要看。