伴随返乡浪潮，乡村建设成为政治话语，亟需学者“揭示”乡村现实，为乡村建设“祛魅”。中国农村分化多元，需基于村庄共同体、乡土中国、国家治理单元三重属性，结合国情探索复兴路径。乡村建设作为世界理论体系中的中国经验，涵盖不同时代不同主体改造乡村与社会的思想和实践。本文选取华南农业地区T村为研究对象，开展一年的参与式观察和社会实验，尝试将个案与历史和理论对话，为乡村建设揭示困境、明确路径。从乡村治理视角，T村面临基层政府“悬浮”与“选择性治理”困境。县乡一体化使项目下乡成为部门“飞地”；指标导向、一票否决的干部考核机制造成了“趋利”、“避害”的思维模式。农村工作优先级低，官员围绕“典型”和“重点”工作，创新和协调难以开展。中央政策“最后一公里”呈现出极大的不经济与不均衡，乡村制度供给短缺，村庄自组织和社会参与受限。从社区运行视角，T村整体呈现从空间到权威的“失序”状态。土地分配格局逐步固化，私有观念取代集体意识，利益群体复杂化；宗族文化复苏但与村庄秩序脱钩，村内群体分化；村组干部公信力、组织能力下降，行政能力弱化。“新乡贤”返乡加剧村庄文化网络失衡，多元权威使村庄共识和集体行动难以实现。从社会参与视角，社会力量有“符号化”和“商业化”T村倾向。社会群体将T村视为文化符号、慈善对象、资本标的，又开展文化保护行动、企业社会责任、文旅投资行为。在企业与媒体的强力推动下，T村逐步沦为宣传符号和投资标的，发展要素“脱嵌”，村庄丧失话语权和主体地位。T村的困境是由政府、村庄、社会力量复杂的行动逻辑构成的。政府控制的项目飞地、资本开发的文旅空间或延续无序状态都不能实现可持续发展。乡村建设应从社区需求出发，通过议题共享、逻辑整合和社区实验培育村庄内生力量。T村开展了文化、社会组织、经济三方面实验：通过规划、保护中的问题发掘，价值引导，社会参与促成村庄共识；通过建立“村民-新乡贤”议事平台形成村庄决策机制；通过入股方式和保护机制设计，成立集体经济股份制公司。实验在培育社区意识、推动政府改革和吸引社会参与方面取得了一定成效，但面对遗留问题、传统思维和土地争议仍有遗憾。历史与意识局限尚可用不断试错破解，但有关土地改革、资本下乡的政策缺失则需要宏观的改革与创新。
The three issues of agriculture, rural and farmers are still conspicuous contradiction of China in the urban age. With the rising tide of back-to-rural, rural reconstruction become a political discourse but the rural is obliterated. Scholars should reveal the rural reality and disenchant the rural reconstruction. Different with the west, rural China is in a more complex differentiation. With the understanding of country context and village character, we need take three attributes of community, rural China and governance unit at the same time to find the rural revival path. As the Chinese experience of rural development, rural reconstruction contains the thought and practice of different times and different groups to transform the rural and society. This research take T village in the less developed areas of Southern China as its case, to carry out participatory observation and rural reconstruction experiment for one year, and tries to expand the individual experience through dialogue with the macro history and theory. This research attempts to reveal the dilemma and clarity the path through the case of T village: it analysis the contradiction from the local government, village and social groups; establishing the scheme of rural reconstruction for T village and tested it by experiment.From the perspective of rural governance, the local government of L County is in the state of "suspension" and "selective governance". The trend of integration of county and township government made the transfer payment project become enclave of county departments. Indicators oriented and one-vote-veto cadre assessment mechanism caused the thinking mode of profit-trend and harm-avoid. Rural issues are in low priority and officials work around the "typical village" and "key project", which make it difficult to carry out innovation and coordination. The "last mile" of the central policy is in a great uneconomical and unbalanced situation. The institutional supply is not enough, and the self-organization and social participation are limited.From the perspective of community, T village shows "disorder" in both space and authority, due to historical, market and individual factors. Land allocation pattern is gradually solidified, private concept replaces the collective consciousness, and interest groups are complicating. The clan culture are recovering but unhooked with village order with the group differentiation of the new country squires and villagers. The credibility and organizational ability of village cadres are declining, village administrative ability is weakened. The refluxing of new country squires exacerbated the imbalance of cultural nexus, which makes the collective action difficult to achieve.From the perspective of social participation, social groups have the tendencies of "symbolic" and "commercial" of T village. Social groups take T village as a cultural symbol, charitable object and the investment target, so as to carry out cultural protection action, corporate social responsibility and cultural tourism investment. Under the strong impetus of the enterprise and the media, T village has gradually become a symbol of publicity and investment targets. Factors of production are "disembedding" with village losing the right to speak and the main body status.The dilemma of rural reconstruction in T village is composed of the complex action logic of government, village and social groups. None of being the project enclave of local government, being the cultural tourism space of capital, or continuation of disorder can achieve the sustainable development of T village. Rural reconstruction should base on the need of community and collective action, integrate all groups by sharing issues and cultivate endogenous capability in experiment.The experiments of T village consist of three aspects, including culture, social organizing and economy. Community consensus was obtained through problem mining, value guidance and social participation in planning and conservation issues. Decision-making mechanism was built based on civic platform of "villager-new country squires", which achieved unity and collaboration in village. Stock system collective economic entity in village was established by expansion of membership right and multiple ways of stock ownership. The experiment made a difference in cultivating community consciousness, promoting government reform and attracting of social participation, but still left regrets when facing legacy issues, conventional thinking and land disputes. Historical legacy and conscious limitation could be solved by trial and error. However, the lack of policy and institution, such as the system of land reform and mode of rural investment, need macroscopic reform and innovation.
