反思国际关系史书写中的“欧洲中心论”元叙事

A Critique of the Eurocentric Metanarrative in the Historiography of International Relations

目前西方学界的国际关系史书写中的"欧洲中心论"元叙事,既包含对非西方世界历史地位的忽视和贬低,同时也遮蔽了人们对欧洲或西方历史的准确认知。它笼罩下的国际关系史叙事主要表现出三种偏好:即偏好于主权国家、偏好于体系、偏好于条约。冷战结束后,西方的国际关系史研究中的英国学派,为破除"欧洲中心论"所付出的努力给我们提供了有益的启示,然而,其仍在一定程度上保留着"欧洲中心论"的痕迹。在如何进一步提升国际关系史叙事实践的问题上,应当更多地关注社会的影响与作用;重视非国家行为体的活动;注意国际体系内部的互动与相互影响;处理好国际关系史专题研究与宏观把握之间的辩证关系;克服在资料上片面强调条约和政府档案的倾向。

In the Western historiography of international relations,there is a Eurocentric metanarrative,which not only overlooks or looks down on the significance of non-Western history,but also prevents one from gaining an appropriate understanding of European or Western history. Due to this Eurocentricmetanarrative,the historiography of international relations has shown three biases for: 1) nation states; 2)international systems and 3) international treaties. In the postwar years,the English School of the Western historiography of international relations made headways in breaking free from this metanarrative. However,its writings still retain some the residues. In order to eschew the Eurocentric metanarrative,this article suggests several areas where historians can make more meaningful effort. The first is paying attention to the role domestic society plays in shaping international relations. The second is studying activities unsponsored by or unrelated with states. The third is noting interactions and mutual influence within an international system. The fourth is balancing both micro and macro studies of international study. And the fifth is expanding the use of sources,transcending the traditional focus on government treaties and documents.