历史叙事在国家对外政策行为中的运用逻辑——以俄乌冲突引发的叙事争议为例

The Logic of the Usage of Historical Narrative in the State's Foreign Policy Behavior-The Case of the Narrative Controversy Arising from the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict

叙事是具有建构主义性质的认知结构,被视为根据现实需要来解释过去的经历。在特定政治语境下,历史叙事在集体记忆与对外政策行为之间建立了因果联系,决策者利用记忆共同体成员熟悉的叙事主题与叙事模板,为其提出的政策主张及外交行为提供合法性和动员力。这些历史叙事不仅应被理解为对过去的叙事,也应被理解为对未来的叙事。本文以俄乌冲突引发的叙事争议为例,重点探讨历史叙事在俄乌两国对外政策行为中的运用逻辑,并展现围绕同一个议题的不同叙事如何成为俄乌双方进行宣传和鼓动的工具,如何作为对外政策行为的托词而成为争议的焦点。俄乌冲突的复杂性在于,它不仅体现为俄罗斯与西方的冲突对抗,同时也是俄乌两国对历史的不同诠释以及对各自历史观的重塑,导致两国在涉及地缘利益与安全困境、认同构建与身份重塑的记忆中形成了明显的叙事偏差,从而形成了当下俄乌冲突无法告停的症结。2014年后俄乌领导人之间的深刻分歧反映了不同记忆共同体及其各自运用的叙事工具之间的巨大差异,与其说这是对历史问题的立场,母宁说是对当下现实政治问题的立场。对历史叙事作用机制的分析、对历史叙事与对外政策之关系的探讨可为同类型问题的研究提供更多思路。

Narratives are cognitive structures of a constructivist nature and are viewed as interpreting past experiences in light of real needs.In a given political context,historical narratives establish a causal link between collective memory and foreign policy behavior,and policymakers use narrative themes and narrative templates familiar to members of the memory community to provide legitimacy and mobilizing power for their proposed policy ideas and diplomatic behavior.These historical narratives should be understood not only as narratives of the past but also of the future.Taking the narrative controversy over the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as an example,this paper focuses on the logic of historical narratives in the foreign policy behavior of Russia and Ukraine,and shows how different narratives around the same issue have become the tools of propaganda and agitation for both sides,and how they have become the focus of controversy as the pretext for foreign policy behavior.The complexity of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict lies in the fact that it is not only a conflict and confrontation between Russia and the West,but also a matter of different interpretations of history by Russia and Ukraine and the reshaping of their respective views of history,which has led to the formation of obvious narrative biases in the memories of the two countries in the context of geo-interests and security dilemmas,as well as in the construction of identities and the reshaping of identities,and has thus formed the crux of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict,which is unable to come to an end at the present time.The profound differences between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders after 2014 reflect the huge differences between different communities of memory and the narrative tools they employ,not so much in terms of their positions on historical issues,but rather on current realpolitik issues.The analysis of the mechanisms of historical narratives and the discussion of their relationship with foreign policy could provide additional ideas for the study of the same type of problem.