“反写”即“正写”:“西方中心主义”批判的思想陷阱——以《欧洲形成中的亚洲》为例

To Write back is to Write for: The Intellectual Trap in the Critique of Western Centralism

"后学"思潮背景下西方的"反写""西方中心主义"话语,包含着一个奇妙的悖论,那就是这种话语在解构"西方中心主义"的同时,又在建构并不断重建这种理论,其方法表现在知识与价值两个方面:从知识上看,越是证明西方学习"东方"并不断受益于"东方",就越能证明西方拥有的知识优势,原本知识是没有固定"所用权"的,谁掌握了它,谁就拥有它,当西方成为"东方知识"的主人时,西方的文化优势便无从置疑了;从价值上看,西方越是承认"东方"拥有的文化优势并不断进行自我批判,就越能证明西方文化自信开放与谦逊包容的主体意识。在一个西方中心的现实语境中"反写""西方中心主义",实际上是一种相反相成的文化诡计,"反写"的结果是"正写"。笔者并不是从动机上判断这种文化诡计,而是从事实与功能上讨论它,以《欧洲形成中的亚洲》为例分析这种诡计的运作方式,可以让我们看清"西方中心主义"的"反写"与"正写"的辩证结构以及这种辩证结构赋予"西方中心主义"话语的强大力量。

The academic discourse of writing back to Western Centralism implicates a paradox. The paradox lies in the fact that the act of ＂writing back＂ actually constructs and reconstructs the discourse of Western Centralism it sets out to deconstruct. The paradox shows in two aspects of knowledge and value. When knowledge is concerned, the logic is that the more the West learns from and is influenced by the East the more advantaged the West is proved to be as the West is positioned and reinforced to be the master of the West. When value is concerned, the more the West acknowledges its cultural advantage of the East and practices self - criticism the more its consciousness of subjectivity is consolidated through its openness, modesty and tolerance. In such a Western- Centered reality, ＂writing back＂ to Western Centralism is actually a double -functioned cultural artifice, during which ＂writing back＂ turns into ＂writing for. ＂ By taking the example of Lach and Van Kley＇ s Asia in the Making of Europe, the paper does not try to trace the motivation behind the cultural artifice of ＂writing back＂ but to investiage its function and results. The naner hones to exnose the dialectic structure and the extreme nower of Western Centralism.