摘要
对作为“一门美国社会科学”的国际关系理论中的“知识”与“权力”二者的联系进行解构的工作已经做了很多。英国学派和“中国特色国际关系理论”也参与到了“民族化”国际理论的行列之中。本文采用一种谱系学的方法来描述在中国民族主义兴起的背景下 ,2 0世纪 90年代中国学派的浮现及其逻辑 ,并且分析该理论对古代“大同”伦理观念的诉求。这种理论建构将与英国学派有关“国际社会”讨论的浮现及其逻辑联系起来。“国际社会”和“大同”都使用“文明标准”作为区分国际关系主体与客体的界限。文章结论认为 ,这两种国际关系理论取得一致的诸多方法之一 ,即是用文明和帝国的相同逻辑来排斥美国国际关系理论 :为了重申中国和英国理论上的“我族 (self)”而建构一个美国理论上的“他族 (other)”。因此这些理论并非其倡导者所认为的那么彻底 ,它们将理论探讨局限于三个民族国家而成为世界政治中其他“国家中心主义”方法的保守联盟者。
Much work has been done to deconstruct the links between knowledge and power in IR as an'American Social Science.'But both the English School and'IR Theory with Chinese Characteristics'are also involved in'nationalizing'international theory .This essay uses a genealogical method to trace the emergence of the Chinese School in the 1990s and the logic behind its emergence in the context of the rise of Chinese nationalism,and it analyzes the theory's appeal to the ancient ethical concept of Great Harmony.The construction of this theory is related to the emergence and logic of the English School's discussion of an'international society.''International society'and Great Harmony both use the'standards of civilization'to draw boundaries between the subjects and objects of IR.The essay concludes that one of the ways by which the two IR theories gain coherence is to exclude American IR theory in the same logic of civilization and empire:an American theoretical'other'is constructed so as to reaffirm the Chinese and English self.Hence these theories are not as radical as their promoters suggest;rather,by limiting theoretical discussion to these three nation-states,they are conservative confederates of other state-centric approaches to world politics.
出处
《世界经济与政治》
CSSCI
北大核心
2004年第6期49-54,共6页
World Economics and Politics
