天下共生的悖論：何謂「天下」？天下之「餘」在何處？

The Paradox of Tianxia Co-existence: What Is“All Under Heaven”? Where Lies Its Surplus?

本文提出的問題是：「天下」的視野如何構成了空間秩序？「天下」與「共生」為何存在著不可化約的悖論？「餘」的視角可否作為批判分析的起點？
本文的基本命題是，「天下」是一個視野的問題，一個既立足於世間、又超越於世間的視野。君臨天下，不同的國君看到了不同的版圖，而隨之征戰，併吞並納入不同邊疆部落的領土，並且以治理技術穩定統治的秩序。「天下」的版圖與邊界的移動，見證了漫長的土地爭奪歷史，以及伴隨著的治理暴力。每一次的邊界遷移，都是具體的殘酷行動。中國史就在漢族擴張收縮以及其他族群相互傾軋之間，在世界史發展的總的傾向之間，展開了其伸縮變化的曲線。「宅茲中國」的「宅」與「中國」，標記著無法化約的死亡地形學。
本文首先透過施密特對於「大地之法」的分析，說明「法」意味著「空間秩序的安排」，必然牽涉了土地佔取、分配與生產的過程，繼而提出中國傳統「天下觀」的視角，不同於施密特所說明的西伐利亞合約的歐洲秩序，卻恰恰說明了「大地之法」土地爭奪原理的啟動機制。
其次，本文藉由趙汀陽的論點，檢討中國的天下秩序如何展開了疆域擴張的動態地形學，思考「天下」視野是在什麼立足點所捕捉？如何勾勒其版圖？如何分配其空間秩序？本文指出，「中國」時時刻刻在變，其實一直不是同樣的「中國」；或者說，「中國」非「一」，中國是複數的，此「一」並非彼「一」。
第三，本文回到歷史，說明「天下」的政治神學如何形成，「宅茲中國」的「宅」如何遷移，以什麼物質條件來執行？版圖變遷的代價是什麼？維護秩序的制度是什麼？為何天下帝國的擴張具有殖民性格？本文檢討趙汀陽、葛兆光、汪暉、杜正勝與許成鋼幾位學者的論點，並指出天下擴張的殖民性格以及物質性部署。天下版圖的變化曲線實際上代表了疆域變遷的殘酷地形圖：「禮」是作為穩定內外上下以及強迫同化的文化秩序策略，而「刑」必然永遠隨著「禮」而出現，並以征戰兵武與教化控制而彰顯勢力範圍。
第四，本文討論21世紀的中國如何以「天下一家」、「和諧共生」等政治修辭，透過「一帶一路」，鋪展其天下版圖，形成了什麼樣的新天下圖景。本文提出的問題是，為何在此數位天下的基層，出現了前現代保甲制度模式的網格化管理。
最後，本文提出明末思想家方以智所思考的「物論」以及「餘」的位置，作為視角轉移，強調相對於「天下」的膨脹擴張視角及其物質性部署，「餘」提供了不同的視角，得以分析「天下」的極限及其所遮蔽的陰暗處，作為思考殖民認識論的批判性分析之起點。

This paper asks: How does the vision of tianxia constitute a spatial order? Why does an irreducible tension persist between tianxia and co-existence? Can the perspective of“surplus”(yu) provide a critical point of departure?
It argues that tianxia is fundamentally a question of perspective—a vision both grounded in and exceeding the world. To“rule all-under-heaven”is to produce a shifting cartographic horizon through war, annexation, and techniques of governance. Its changing boundaries testify to a long history of territorial struggle and the violence inherent in governance; each frontier shift is enacted through concrete and often brutal operations. Chinese history thus unfolds as a fluctuating curve shaped by cycles of expansion and contraction, interethnic contestation, and broader world-historical forces. The phrase zhai zi Zhongguo (“to dwell in the center of the realm”) marks an irreducible thanatopography—a terrain inscribed by death.
This paper begins by drawing on Carl Schmitt’s analysis of the nomos of the earth to argue that“law”entails the ordering of space, necessarily involving processes of land appropriation, distribution, and production. It then proposes that the traditional Chinese conception of tianxia offers a perspective that illuminates the operative mechanism underlying such territorial contestation.
Second, engaging the arguments of Zhao Ting-yang, the paper examines how the tianxia order unfolds a dynamic topology of territorial expansion, asking: from what standpoint is the tianxia vision constituted? How are its boundaries delineated? How is its spatial order distributed? It argues that“China”is never a fixed entity but is constantly shifting; it is not singular but plural—this“one”is never the same“one.”
Third, returning to history, the paper analyzes how the political theology of tianxia takes form: how“dwelling in this China”(zhai zi Zhongguo) is displaced and enacted through material conditions; what costs accompany territorial transformation; and what institutional mechanisms sustain order. It argues that the expansion of the tianxia empire bears a distinctly colonial character. Engaging the works of Ge Zhao-guang, Wang Hui, Du Zheng-sheng, and Xu Cheng-gang, the paper highlights both the colonial nature and material foundations of tianxia expansion. The shifting contours of its territorial map constitute a brutal topography of expansion: li (ritual) operates as a cultural strategy for stabilizing hierarchy and enforcing assimilation, while xing (punishment) invariably accompanies li, manifesting through military force and disciplinary control to demarcate spheres of power.
Fourth, the paper turns to the twenty-first century, examining how political rhetorics such as“One Family under Heaven”and“harmonious co-existence,”together with the Belt and Road Initiative, extend a new tianxia formation. It asks why, at the infrastructural level of this digital tianxia, grid-style governance reactivates the logic of the premodern baojia system.
Finally, drawing on the late Ming thinker Fang Yi-zhi’s reflections on wulun (a discourse on things) and the notion of“surplus”(yu), the paper proposes a shift in perspective. In contrast to the expansive and materializing vision of tianxia, yu offers a critical vantage point from which to apprehend its limits and the obscured zones it produces, thereby opening a space for rethinking co-existence.