從東亞出發思考的必要性及其方法

On the Necessity and Methodology of Thinking from East Asia

本文以中日思想交流經驗為中心，論述東亞研究的幾個方法論問題。全文共分五節，第一節係前言，第二節指出二十世紀亞洲知識分子對亞洲前途的論述，在「脫亞」與「興亞」之間掙扎，雙方論述雖然對立，但都涉及東亞主體性的解消或建構之問題。本文第三節探討「東亞」既是一個政治系統，也是一個文化系統。數千年來東亞各國政治互動與文化交流，是在「中心」與「邊陲」權力與文化均不對等的狀況之下進行，所以，每當「中心」式微之際，「邊陲」地區就提出新論述，冀圖將當前「實然的東亞」轉化為未來「應然的東亞」。在近代以前的東亞文化圈中，中國是「重要的他者」。在十九世紀中葉以後東亞各國的互動中，西方則是「不在場的重要他者」，處處牽動東亞各國的政治與文化動向。本文第四節揭示二十世紀「從東亞出發思考」必須採取中西比較文化史的視野，也必須聚焦東亞內部文化的「共性」與「殊性」，以及東亞內部各國之間的緊張、衝突與交互影響。第五節結論，呼籲在二十世紀全球化時代中，重訪東亞文化的重要意義。

The present article examines the question of how to think from an East Asian perspective. We first pointed out that the expression 'East Asia' covers 'East Asia as a political system' and 'East Asia as a cultural contact zone'. Either way, in the past several millennia, the exchanges and relationships among these East Asian countries and regions exhibited extreme asymmetries of power and culture that inevitably led to political leviathans and cultural hegemony. In the 20^(th) century, many East Asian scholars of the humanities and social sciences were influenced by academic paradigms borrowed from America or Europe. They extrapolated ideas from humanities and social science theories that were based on Euro-American experiences and applied them uncritically to their East Asian studies, cutting and trimming the data to fit inappropriately imported paradigms. Because 'the West' stood as the 'Significant Other in Absentia' in the back of these scholars' minds as they engaged in their research, only East Asian phenomena that were similar to or comparable with European or American experiences were treated seriously by them. For this reason, 'Thinking from East Asia' is an issue that warrants serious attention of East Asian scholars today. However, the 'Thinking from East Asia' that we advocate in the present article is not another form of Reflexive Orientalism, but instead seeks to compare and contrast the cultures and intellectual traditions of the countries and regions of East Asia. Only by understanding these similarities and differences can we grasp their deeper traditional commonalities and divergences, so that future scholars may avoid the pitfalls of cultural ethnocentrism and political solipsism.