物質結構與理念結構的競爭解釋：中國歷史上的春秋戰國時期

Competing Explanations of Material and Ideational Structures: Bipolarity and Multipolarity in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods of Chinese History

中國崛起，美中力量此消彼長，被認為是往後美中衝突不可避免的物質性結構理由，但除了少數的例外試著修正現有物質結構理論的缺陷，認為美中衝突並非不可避免的論點，主要是基於中國獨特的歷史文化，將之作為理念性結構，以與物質性結構對應。如此的發展，確實擴大了傳統上只以近代歐洲經驗為中心的國際關係理論視野，促進了歷史學與國際關係學的對話交流，但在同時一個缺口也慢慢浮現了。既有研究往往是檢驗既有物質結構的理論，能否也適用中國不同朝代的案例，或是主張中國文化的理念結構，與物質結構的作用相輔相成；而較少先將物質結構的驅力控制，據以與不同理念結構的驅力，進行競爭性解釋力高低的直接對決。因此，本文嘗試先以做純物質驅力的邏輯推導，再套用在中國歷史上的與近代歐洲多國並列最相似的春秋戰國時期，同時檢視當時主流思想所形成的理念結構及其產生的驅力，藉以斷定在其間各時段中，究竟是物質結構的解釋生效，還是理念結構的解釋勝出。從中本文發現，的確許多時候物質與理念結構的解釋是相容的、無競爭關係，但當它們兩者相牴觸時，導致穩定的理念結構並無法壓倒導致不穩定的物質結構，但導致不穩定的理念結構卻能壓倒導致穩定的物質結構。

The rise of China relative the U.S. is considered the unavoidable material structural reason for inevitable future conflict between the U.S. and China. While there are a few exceptions that attempt to correct the flaws in existing material structuralist theories, most counter-arguments to the inevitability of U.S.-China conflict are mainly based on China's unique history and culture, which act as the ideational structural parallel to the material structure. Such theoretical developments have indeed expanded the horizon of international relations, which has been traditionally centered on modern European experiences, yet a gap has also emerged. Existing studies have often tested whether the existing material structural theories can also be applied to different Chinese dynasties, or have advocated that the ideational structures of Chinese history and culture complement the effects of the material structures. However, the competing explanatory power between the material and ideational structures is rarely tested. Therefore, this article attempts to make such a test by examining the different bipolar and multipolar historical eras of China to determine which structural effect prevails. In the end, this article finds that the logic of material and ideational structures are indeed not inherently contradictory. Nonetheless, when the two structures do conflict, the ideational structure that leads to stability cannot overwhelm the material structure that leads to instability; however, the ideational structure that leads to instability can overwhelm the material structure that leads to stability.