国际关系理论家的预测为什么失败?——兼论历史学与国际关系学的差异与互补

Why International Theorists Fail to Foresee the Future:Some Reflections on the Differences and Cross-Fertilization between History and IR Studies

在冷战结束前后,一些知名的国际关系理论家对国际局势的错误预测反映出国际关系研究的学科局限:采取化约主义的思维方式对复杂的国际政治现实进行高度简化和抽象,过于追求国际关系研究的科学性而忽视了人文性,过度强调国际关系的规律性和必然性。历史学(外交史)与国际关系学有很大差异,而且也不以预测见长,但仍可以在多个方面弥补国际关系学之不足,促进国际关系理论家提升预测的质量,包括:运用整体主义的思维方式来理解国际关系,重视领导者个人的自主性和能动性,意识到历史偶然性的作用和时间流动带来的变化,更好地甄别和选择史学论著中的证据,以及在观察、推理、演绎和计算之外采取叙事、类比和想象等方式对国际形势进行预测。鉴于国际事务的复杂性,国际关系理论家应该在进行预测时保持谦逊和审慎,并时刻准备应对不可预知的事件。

ing international politics,its excessive pursuit of scientificity of international studies by attaching the great importance to the power of international structure and nonhuman factors without recognizing the role of human agency,as well as its misbelief in the regularity and inevitability of international evolution.There are great differences between history and international studies and most historians refuse to take anticipating the future as their mission.Nevertheless,history can make up for the deficiency of international studies and help theorists of international relations qualify their predictions in following five aspect:adding holistic or ecological view into the international studies and help theorists realize the complexity of casualty;attaching more importance to the individual autonomy and cultural diversity;acknowledging the role of contingency and sequence of time;developing the skill and ability of international theorists to examine,distinguish and select historical evidences in the secondary works;improving the ability of international relations scholars in anticipating the future by offering new tools beyond the traditional ones(observation,theory,deduction,calculation),such as narrative,analogy and imagination.Due to the complexities of international affairs,international theorists must be modest and prudent in making prediction and keeping ready at all times for unforeseeable events.