下文是中央研究院《思想史》創刊號（2013-10）集體（包括本人在內）評論哈佛大學系主任阿米蒂奇教授提倡「思想史的國際化」鴻文的後續。《思想史》的編輯們未能看出其他論者對阿米蒂奇的「國際化史觀」之共同質疑，指出它並無解決國際的「空間」是不平等的問題。我在信中總結了其他人的看法而少談自己，惜乎《思想史》一刊只用阿米蒂奇一文作為創刊的發射台，應景完畢，並無尋根問底的熱誠。全球「空間」解構西方中心的「時間」這個工程在西方已進行了二十載了，《思想史》的編輯們仍覺得它艱澀難懂，真的無法鐸。
阿米蒂奇教授，
我為我帶刮擦性的文筆道歉，此文筆是一視同仁的。當我說先生看似「試圖再度啟動已成為疲軟的外交史」，我是認為該學域有繼續存在之必要。俾斯麥型國家的「英雄時代」已逝，今日被重新命名為「國際史」的外交史勢必改轅易轍，遠遠越出帝國外交部門之間的折衝樽俎，官方成份銳減，呈現的是更多樣性；跨越國界的思想交易何嘗不可算上一份呢？我期待你「織編各種相繫縷帶，使國際關係重新成為一張蓆子」何開罪之有？我正是將先生置於開路者之列。
依我看，誤解起於我對「全球思想史」的理解是避開空間的區劃，而先生的定義則有賴於此。舉一例說：我的研究路數是將法國大革命當作是中國的民國革命敘事之一部分，而法國大革命亦被按照民國革命的劇本改寫。雖然法國大革命有時得「依賴」它的小輩對話對手之扶持，但到底誰把光環借給誰卻無庸置疑。
因此，我把心一橫，索性承認「在世界史中，西方霸權[目前來說]既是既定事實，也是[長遠來說]過眼雲煙」，並對先生「貶低歐洲」提出詰問。今日，中國人能撇開印度而視「涅槃」為本土的，但在接受「自由」「民主」上頭心中不無耿耿，舌底總遺下它們是由一個中心紆尊降貴地傳授的餘味。
用全球「空間」解構西方中心的「時間」這個工程之走岔，也影響了我的思維。二十年前，這個嘗試前途似錦：將西方當作頂端暨目的之單線進步觀—如現代化範式之流—終將被五花八門的多線條「多元現代性」溶蝕。那個天真的年代毫不警覺「空間」也是有等級性的。曾幾何時，論者悲嘆「所有空間都是平等的，但有些空間比其他的更平等」。哪個空間比另一空間該更受「特惠」惹起了爭端，人們更興致勃勃地從事將「地方性」普世化並將普世性「地方化」。
在這裡，我發現了先生將思想史國際化面臨的地雷陣，而不是我那些帶有倒鉤的鐵絲評語。如果你的主要關注並非「權力」問題，那麼我們對你的大作都未予全面公正的對待。你的多面體工程之拓撲學確實很難勾勒。
孫隆基
2013/11/13
The letter is a follow-up of a concerted discussion on Prof. David Armitage's article on the "Internationalization of Intellectual History" in the launching issue of the journal, Intellectual History, of the Academia Sinica, Taiwan：
Prof. Armitage,
I apologize for my abrasive style, which is impartial toward everybody. When I say you appear to exert “an effort to jumpstart the decrepit field of diplomatic history,” I see the need for its continual existence. As the Bismarckian state has already passed its “heroic age,” diplomatic history as it is rechristened “international history” today is perforce something very different, way beyond maneuvers and counter-maneuvers among imperial foreign ministries, far less official and polymorphously richer; why not intellectual transactions across borders as well? And what is so offensive to expect you “to weave various affiliated academic strands together to re-mat the field of international relations,” in short, placing you among the pathfinders?
Misunderstanding, as I see it, arises as my conception of “global intellectual history” eschews the compartmentalization of space and yours hinges on it. My approach is to, say, treat the French Revolution, narratively-speaking, as part of the Chinese Republican Revolution, as the French Revolution is also rewritten in the script of the Chinese Republican Revolution. Even though the French Revolution is at times “dependent” on the succor of its junior dialogist, there is no question about who is bestowing the halo.
So, I simply bite the bullet, to admit that “Western hegemony is but an ephemeral moment [in the long run], as well as a fait accompli [for now], in world history, ” and remonstrate with you for “diminishing Europe” to that effect. Today, the Chinese could afford to regard “Nirvana” as more Chinese than Indian. The same cannot be said about their reception of “liberty” and “democracy,” not without lingering qualms that these are transmitted from a condescending center.
My concerns are also shaped by the going awry of the project to deconstruct Eurocentric “time” with Global “space.” It looked so promising two decades ago that unilinear schemes of progress, namely the modernization paradigm, that crowned the West as the apex and the telos, were readily eroded by the construction of multifarious multilinear “multiple modernities.” That age of innocence was not alert to the fact that “space” could be hierarchical as well. Consequently, discussants now lament that “all spaces are equal, but some spaces are more equal than others.” Which one space is more “privileged” than another becomes a matter of contestation, and efforts to universalize the “parochial” and to parochialize the “universal” is pursued with gusto.
Here I see more minefields for your internationalization of intellectual history than any barbed comments I made. If your primary concern is not with the issue of “power” at all, then all of us have not done full justice to your essay. As your project is polyhedronical, its topology is hard to delineate.
Sun Lung-kee
2013/11/13
沒有留言:
張貼留言