跨文化历史研究的缘由与路径

Reasons for and Approaches to the Studies of Cross-Cultural History

理解他者性时应注意文化的3个特征:意义的系统性、主观性、受制于特殊辩证法。全球史受关注可由人类的两个动机解释:一是对普遍观念和理想的长期追求;二是使历史书写更接近科学模式,帮助民族之间超越分歧并共享人类团结意识。跨文化相遇历史研究者需关注3种主体性,以揭示文化双方由各自有关世界、社会和秩序的假设占据的内核,理解他者性常遭抗拒的原因,窥视地方历史与全球史重叠的空间。克服跨文化历史研究挑战的路径在于增强跨学科意识,关注文化差异引发的文化变迁的相互性及空间。任何文化适应都伴有去文化作用。保护世界文化多样性的努力会比统一化企图更明智,矛盾的价值观将会共存,基于理解他者性的宽容会比同质化的企图更有为。跨文化历史能充当地方历史与全球史之间的纽带、社会之间增进理解的认知出发点,但只有在本土层面才能获取其全部深层意义。跨文化历史研究能弥合个体文化本质上的保护主义与要求其保护结构改变的全球化进程的鸿沟。他者性的注入归化为常态性时便成为文化变迁,因此研究者应审视输出者与接受者的本土层面,以及形成共有意义、协商身份、表达信念、复制价值观、塑造现实和秩序之象征表现的跨文化交际过程。

In making sense of otherness, we should pay attention to three characteristics of culture: a system of meanings, subjectivity, and being ruled by a peculiar dialectic. The attention to global history can be explained by two human motivations: One is the perennial quest for universal ideas and ideals, and the other is to bring the writing of history closer to the scientific model, and help peoples to transcend divisions and share a sense of human solidarity.The researchers into the history of intercultural encounters need to attend to three subjectivities in order to expose both cultures’ inner cores inhabited by their respective assumptions about the world, society and order, understand the reasons for frequent resistance to otherness, and peek into the space where local and global histories overlap. The approaches to overcoming the challenges to the studies of cross-cultural history lie in enhancing interdisciplinary awareness, and concentrating on the mutuality and space of culture change triggered by cultural difference. Any acculturation is accompanied by deculturation. The efforts to preserve the diversity of world cultures will be more advisable than the unifying attempts. Contradictory values will coexist. The tolerance based on understanding otherness will be more promising than the attempts to homogenize. Cross-cultural history can serve as a link between local and global histories, and a cognitive point of departure for increasing understanding among societies, but only at the local dimensions can the full depth of its meanings be accessed. The studies of cross-cultural history can bridge the gap between the essential preservationism of an individual culture and the globalization process that exacts change in its preserving structure. The injection of otherness will turn into culture change when it is domesticated into normalness, so the researchers should examine the local dimensions of both the exporter and the recipient, and the cross-cultural communication process of forming shared meanings, negotiating identities, expressing beliefs, reproducing values, and molding symbolic representations of reality and order.