晚清至民国东南亚华侨史之学术批评

Academic Criticism on the History of Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia from Late Qing Dynasty to the Republic of China

东南亚华侨史是一门比较年轻的学科。虽然研究理论、研究方法已渐成型,但其学术批评仍显滞后。学术的发展应与学术批评相伴而生,而华侨人物与名著的批评是华侨学术批评史所要关注的最基本内容。具体来看,许烺光、潘光旦在移民因素问题上都批评陈达著作对生物学因素关注不够,许烺光还对移民影响做出了反思与批评,许烺光的批评逻辑性强,态度也较尖锐,潘光旦的批评显得较为理性和温和。许云樵将南洋华侨研究嵌入南洋研究之中,其对学术史的分析和批评是站在南洋研究者的立场来观察和评价的,作为南洋研究其说颇有见地,作为南洋华侨研究则并不完全令人信服。学术批评要想做到相对客观,必须要摒除预设立场,以"移情式"理解来对待所批评的对象。

Academic development is inevitably accompanied by academic criticism,which is an indispensable part of academic research on the history of overseas Chinese.The criticism of overseas Chinese figures and famous works is the most basic content requiring the attention of academic criticism of the history of overseas Chinese.Xu Langguang and Pan Guangdan’s criticism of migration factors points out that ChenDa’s original work does not pay enough attention to the biological factors.Xu logically and sharply reflects and criticizes the impact of migration while Pan’s criticism appears relatively rational and moderate.Xu Yunqiao includes the study of overseas Chinese in the South Seas in the study of the South Seas,and his analysis and criticism of the academic history are conducted from the standpoint of the researchers in the South Seas,which is quite insightful as the study of the South Seas,though not completely convincing as the study of overseas Chinese in the South Seas.If academic criticism wants to be relatively objective,it must abandon presupposition and treat the object of criticism with“empathic”understanding.