摘要
本文先从问题意识的角度回顾了美国战后三代最具影响力的中国研究,进而把那些研究置于近三百年来西方关于中国的思考的大框架之中来分析。目的是要证明中西方非此即彼二元对立的思维是怎样主宰了那些最具影响力的学者们所提出和没有提出的问题,怎样塑造了他们对问题的解答,有时候甚至促使他们违反现有的经验证据。本文论证,在一个现代的中国,中西的相互渗透,包括对西方的选择性重新理解和对两者的调和,而不仅仅是两者间的冲突与矛盾,乃是必然的给定实际;在两者间做出非此即彼的选择在实际层面上是不可能的,只有在理论建构的层面上方才可能。正是对后者的坚持导致了不少违反经验证据的研究和论点。更有进者,非此即彼二元对立的思维方式也可以见于一系列其他相关的二元建构,诸如现代VS.传统、工业VS.农业、城市VS.乡村、市场VS.人口、市场VS.国家、形式理性法律VS.实体非理性法律、普适VS.特殊等。历史的视野要求我们把这些二元视作相互关联和相互作用而不是相互排除、非此即彼的。
This article begins by reviewing the past three generations of postwar U.S. based China research in terms of the central problematique of the most influential scholarship of each generation,and then goes on to place those into the larger context of the past three centuries of Western thought about China. The purpose is to demonstrate how the either/or binary of the West versus China has governed the questions asked and not asked by those influential scholars,and how it has shaped the main answers proffered,sometimes even when they violate available empirical evidence. The article argues that the interpenetration of the Chinese and the Western,with reinterpretations and syncretizing no less than tensions and contradictions,is in fact the basic given reality of a modern China;an either/or choice between the two is not possible in reality,only in theoretical construction. An insistence on the latter is what has given rise to violations of empirical evidence. The either/or binary mode of thinking,moreover,is evidenced in a host of other similar binaries,including modernity versus tradition,industry versus agriculture,cities versus countryside,market versus population,market versus the state,formal-rational law versus substantive law,the universal versus the particular,and so on. A historical approach requires also that we set the either/or,mutually exclusive mode of thinking aside and focus instead on their interrelationship and interaction.
出处
《开放时代》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第1期155-183,7-8,共31页
Open Times
