社会杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (2): 208-242.

• 论文 • 上一篇    

何以共有:闽西客家宗族型村庄的房产观念与实践

刘超群()   

  • 出版日期:2026-03-20 发布日期:2026-05-19
  • 作者简介:刘超群  中国农业大学人文与发展学院社会学与人类学系,E-mail: chaoqun.liu@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金青年项目“协同演化视野下山地乡村人居环境的人类学研究”(20CSH031)

Understanding Co-ownership: Ideas and Practices of House Property in a Lineage-Based Hakka Village of South China

Chaoqun LIU()   

  • Online:2026-03-20 Published:2026-05-19
  • About author:LIU Chaoqun, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, College of Humanities and Development Studies, China Agricultural University, E-mail: chaoqun.liu@qq.com
  • Supported by:
    the National Social Science Fund of China(20CSH031)

摘要:

本文以闽西宗族型村庄为例,探讨房屋共有如何作为稳定形态存续,而非向私有过渡的前现代残余。研究发现,案例村的祠屋系统构成宗族社会的物质本体,并通过房支与房屋体系之同构、祠屋合一的空间配置以及分中有合的继承实践,使房产共有与个体占有长期并存;土改打破了家族共产,将地主房产分予贫下中农,然而改革开放后,房产却向传统共有逻辑复归。比较案例揭示,原家族后代对房间的“实体占有”(物理控制)与祖先对祠厅的“虚拟占有”(象征在场)结合,构成祖产追索和共有回归的锚点。上述发现挑战了西方法学“占有导向私有”的线性预设,表明占有可以是共有的技术而非私有之先导。理解中国乡村产权需关注房屋的本体论价值,现代产权制度亦可兼容传统共有智慧。

关键词: 房屋, 共有, 占有, 宗族, 土改

Abstract:

Taking the transformation of house property in a lineage-based Hakka village in South China as a case study, this paper explores how house co-ownership has persisted as a stable form of property tenure, rather than as a pre-modern relic on the path to "private ownership." The study finds that the ancestral hall-residence (ciwu) system in the case village constitutes the material ontology of lineage society and the spatiotemporal structure of communal property ownership. The systematic correspondence between the lineage branch (fang) system and the building system shapes a hierarchical order of property co-ownership. The integration of ancestral hall and residence accommodates both ritual and residential functions through a spatial layout characterised by a central axis symmetry and a courtyard complex. Inheritance practices that maintain unity amid division-such as cross-allocation and communal use-have enabled the long-term coexistence of property co-ownership and individual possession. The Land Reform of the 1950s dismantled lineage organizations and lineage communal property, redistributing many landlord properties to poor and lower-middle peasants with formal title registration. However, since the Reform and Opening-up in the 1980s, accompanied by the revival of ancestral worship practices, these households have gradually sold the properties back to the descendants of the original landlord families, leading to a reversion of house property toward the traditional logic of lineage and family co-ownership. Comparative case analysis reveals that the combination of "actual possession" (physical control) by descendants of the original landlord families and "virtual possession"(symbolic presence) by ancestors in the ancestral hall constitutes the crucial mechanism for reclaiming ancestral property and serves as an anchor for the restoration of co-ownership. Only when the integration of hall and residence is achieved-that is, when property co-owners simultaneously constitute a worship community aligned with the lineage structure-can a sense of complete ownership be attained, thereby ensuring the continuity of possession and the consolidation of ownership. This finding challenges the linear presumption of "possession leads to private ownership" in Western jurisprudence, demonstrating instead that possession can function as a precursor to communal ownership rather than privatization. The study suggests that understanding rural property rights in China requires attention to the ontological value of housing, and that modern property institutions may accommodate traditional co-ownership wisdom at the legal level.

Key words: house, co-ownership, possession, lineage, Land Reform