| 王宏仁.中国话语权意涵：一种 主观认识论途径[J].国际安全研究,2013,(5):138-153 |
| 中国话语权意涵：一种 主观认识论途径 |
| Implications of China’s Call for “Discourse Power”: A Subjective Epistemological Approach to China’s Emerging Role |
| 投稿时间：2012-12-06 修订日期：2013-06-26 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 国际关系理论 中国崛起 话语权 国家认同 中国形象 |
| 英文关键词: International Relations (IR) theory, China’s rise, discourse power, identity, image |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1569 |
| 全文下载次数: 1005 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 近年来在中国国际关系的文献中，关于“话语权”问题的讨论越来越多。透过两个时期的文献研究（2004-2005年的话语权初始期与2007-2008年的话语权兴盛期）可以归纳出四种由于中国自身需求所产生的话语权认知：马克思主义意识形态、自主独立、国际地位与影响力、国家形象。四种认知反映了中国自身对于其改革开放之后融入国际社会、崛起于国际体系之中的一种主观认识论途径。相对而言，西方世界也有相对应的四种中国认识论途径：民主和平论、现实主义、社会建构论、软实力主张，四者建构出一种西方了解世界他者的“客观”认识论途径。中西方两种不同的认识论思维，除了反映出文化与历史经验的歧异之外，更多表现于认识中国、理解中国崛起的知识论途径差异，而这种差异限制了不同行为者在外交实践上的不同思考方向、决策途径，而容易导致擦枪走火之冲突。中国要克服因此差异而可能引起的冲突或伤害，不是选择完全的内化“拿来主义”来缩短差距，或是一味地利用所谓的“软实力”来试图改变他者的误解，而是应该进行话语联盟与理论重构，迫使以美国为首的“普世主义”观点承认相对的绝对性与历史文化的差异性。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| There has been an increasing number of discussions in the Chinese International Relations (IR) literature regarding China’s “discourse power” in international affairs. From my investigation of two important periods in that literature—the discourse power initiation stage (2004-2005) and blossoming stage (2007-2008)—the author identified four categories of Chinese self-perceptions of discourse power: Marxist ideology, autonomy and independence, international status and influence, and national image. These categories reflect four epistemological approaches entailing China’s integration into international society, and acknowledgment of its rising power during the current post-reform era. The four corresponding Western epistemological approaches to analyzing China’s emerging role are democratic peace theory, IR realism, social constructivism, and soft power (also known as liberal realism). In addition to revealing cultural and historical differences, these contrasting approaches represent clear epistemological differences in understanding China’s rising role. The author argues that for China to overcome conflicts emerging from this divide, it must not internalize Western values or apply a soft-power strategy, but instead engage in a “discourse alliance” and IR theory reconstruction for purposes of encouraging a form of Anglo-centric universalism to accept the realities of relative absolutism and cultural diversity. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|