STS與現代史的相互渴望：以《天演論》與科學文化權威的興起為例

Mutual Aspirations between STS and Modern History:A Case Study of Tianyan Lun and the Rise of Science as Cultural Authority

本文的出發點是，科技與醫療在東亞近代歷史巨變中所扮演的角色，可能遠比學界目前的認識更為巨大與深遠。為了探索此突破，STS與近代史應當密切合作與交流，進而STS內開創出一個歷史取向的研究領域，暫名為「科技與現代東亞的歷史共構」。
為此，本文以嚴復的《天演論》為例，具體說明STS視角如何能為這部中國現代思想史上極重要的著作提供新的理解。長期以來，基於「現代科學」的框架，《天演論》一直被視為誤用科學的社會達爾文主義，是以不曾被寫入中國現代科學史之內。本文指出嚴復致力於使晚清士人將《天演論》視為西方科學的代表作，甚至有意識地創造了一個在地的科學概念――「西學格致」，從而使《天演論》成為為西方科學贏得文化權威的歷史性突破。
基於STS的「共構」理論，本文進一步闡釋了在這種新型文化權威形成的歷史進程中，「科學」與宋明理學中的「天」與「格致」如何相互交融、雙向轉化。透過捕捉科技在歷史共構中所實現的具體形貌，我們一方面可以發展一個不受「現代科學」囿限的的現代東亞科技史，藉此一步地發展一個新的東亞現代史，另一方面可以對蓬勃發展中的科技全球史做出重要的貢獻。

This paper begins with the premise that science, technology and medicine may have played far more significant roles in the historical transformations of modern East Asia than current scholarship acknowledges. To explore this possibility, a collaborative approach between STS (Science, Technology, and Society) and modern history is proposed with the goal of developing a historically oriented research field within STS, tentatively named,“The Historical Co-production of Technoscience and Modern East Asia.”
Using Yan Fu’s Tianyan Lun as a case study, this paper demonstrates how the STS perspective can help create a revisionist understanding of this pivotal work in the history of modern Chinese thought. Traditionally, Tianyan Lun has been viewed as a work that misappropriates science in the form of Social Darwinism, leading to its exclusion from the history of science in modern China. This paper argues, however, that Yan Fu sought to have Tianyan Lun recognized by late Qing intellectuals as a representative work of Western science, and even consciously created a concept of it as“Western gezhi”(Western“investigation of things to acquire knowledge”). In doing so, Tianyan Lun emerged as a crucial text that established unprecedented cultural authority for Western science in China.
By drawing on the STS’s concept of“co-production,”this paper further elucidates how“science”and the Neo-Confucian concepts of“Heaven”and“gezhi”became deeply intertwined and mutually transformative in establishing this new cultural authority. By tracing the specific forms in which technoscience manifested itself during the process of ''co-production,'' we can develop a history of science in modern East Asia that transcends the concept of ''modern science.'' This approach not only deepens our understanding of modern East Asian history but also contributes to the broader project of constructing a truly global history of science.