“欧洲中心论”与世界史研究——兼论世界史研究的“中国学派”问题

Euro-Centrism and the Study of World History

在世界史研究中,存在着“假定前提的欧洲中心论”、“文化传播的欧洲中心论”以及“反欧洲中心论的欧洲中心论”三种“欧洲中心论”。它们是一种同构关系。替代论、调和论和修正论是对“欧洲中心论”的三种批判形式。批判“欧洲中心论”不仅是创建“中国学派”的理论前提和实践路径,而且有助于中国世界史学界健康积极的心态和生态的生成。拒绝任何形式的普遍主义、培养理论方法论上的自觉意识和批判精神以及将本土学术资源与西方的学术成就结合起来,是创建健康的、自觉的、开放的“中国学派”必须跨越的路径。就中国世界史学界而言,最关键的是寻求和建构一种“中介”即对话和争论。只有构建世界史阐释的“多元主义”视角,非西方学术界(包括中国世界史学界)才能在世界范围内确立自己的学术话语体系并搭建起相对公允的学术对话平台,才能完成学术文化上的“解殖”任务。

There are premised, culture diffused, and anti-Eurocentric Euro-centrism in the study of world history. There are also three forms of Eurocentric critics: supersessionism, intermediationism and revisionism. Criticizing Euro-centrism can not only construct the theoretic presupposition and practical route of “Chinese School”, but also help create the positive psychology and the environment of “Chinese School”. The route to “Chinese School” should refuse any sense of universalism, cultivate a critical consciousness in theory and methodology, and combine native academic resource with the west academic achievement. The most important thing is to make a media of dialogue and controversy, only in this way we could establish our own academic discourse and set up a relative equitable platform among the world,and accomplish our cultural de-colonization mission.