王建平 中国人民大学
Wang, Jianping, Renmin University of China
原文Original
费正清在中国
费正清在美国的中国研究领域享有特殊的地位。作为学术倡导者和思想家，费正清为理解和影响中美关系的进程做出了不懈的努力。费正清的学术生涯涉及三个相互关联的领域：作为历史学家，费正清致力于19世纪中西方外交和机构史的探讨，并在高等学府讲授中国历史、文明、革命以及中西方交流的历史。作为一位历史教员，他在哈佛大学教育了数以千计的本科生，他指导的博士研究生现在美国和世界各地的高等学府讲授中国研究课程，可谓桃李满天下。在费正清所构建的东亚研究这个区域研究体系中，中国近代史研究只是这一领域的一部分。最后，作为政府顾问和政策阐释者，费正清试图利用各种途径改变历史，而不仅仅是去理解历史。费正清对中美关系的发展产生了重要影响，一方面在美国推广和普及中国研究，另一方面着力影响美国政府的对华政策。因此，费正清的中国研究和学术思想中带有很强的政治色彩，在其学术行为中有着试图影响公众和政府政策的持续而又连贯的政治意图。
本文探讨费正清在倡导和推进美国东亚研究进程中的独特作用，考察费正清在中国作为学生、学者、游客、外交家、政策顾问等多种身份和经历以及这些经历对其职业生涯的影响。费正清作为学者、史学家、政府官员的三重身份使得他得以在美国学术界、政界和公共关系领域对中美关系进程产生持续的影响。费正清说服美国大学管理者、学术界、政府和基金会官员以及美国公众关注东亚，关注中国。费正清大力推进中国研究在美国的学科化和机构化进程、主持了一系列大型的研究项目、创建了哈佛大学的东亚研究中心，确立了现代中国学的理论框架，为美国和世界其他国家的中国研究的发展奠定了基础。费正清坚信，知识只有通过政府和公众的相互作用才能够转化为行动。费正清致力于在中美两种文化、两种政治制度之间搭建相互理解的桥梁。从这个意义上讲，费正清既是一位区域主义者，也是一位全球主义者。本文讨论三个问题：一，身为历史学家和学者的费正清如何以政策倡导者身份来影响中美关系进程？二，鉴于费正清在学术界、政府和公共领域的影响，美国学术界对于中国和中国形象的研究在多大程度上影响了美国政府的对华政策，美国政府的对话政策又在多大程度上左右了学术界的走向？三，如何评价费正清的历史遗产及其对当代的意义？
译文Translation
Fairbank in China
John King Fairbank has occupied a unique position in promoting Sino-American relations. As both academic promoter and thinker, he made persistent efforts to understand and influence the course of Sino-American relations. Acting on the assumption that historians must use their knowledge and position to improve the course of contemporary affairs, he convinces American university administrators, colleagues, government and foundation officials, and the general public that East Asia, China in particular, demanded greater intellectual and financial attention. His career falls into three overlapping spheres: First as a historian whose interest lies in investigating the diplomatic and institutional history of Sino-Western contact in the mid-nineteenth century and who has educated the professional and the general reader on the nature of traditional China, the revolutionary upheavals that transformed it, and Sino-Western exchange. He has also been a teacher of history, educating thousands of undergraduates at Harvard and sending his doctoral students to teach at more universities in the United States and abroad. The second has been as tireless promoter of the larger realm of East Asian studies, of which modern Chinese history constitutes only one area. It is Fairbank’s specialty to convince university administrators, colleagues, government and foundation officials, and the general public that East Asia, China in particular, demanded greater intellectual financial attention. Besides raising funds and consciousness, he occupied center stage in scores of academic projects, the development of Chinese studies at Harvard, and the construction of an infrastructure for promoting and coordinating the field on both nation-wide and an international basis. While Harvard has been his first love, his “religion” and institutional home for almost all his professional life, he has been an imposing figure across the United States and internationally as well. The third sphere concerns his ongoing efforts to understand and influence the course of Sino-American relations. Like his mentor Sir Charles Webster, has acted on the assumption that historians are obliged to use their knowledge and position to improve the course of contemporary affairs. Popularizing China has always gone hand in hand with efforts to influence American policy. Put another way, his research has a consistent political purpose in influencing public and governmental thinking. As advisor, advocate, and interpreter, he has tried in various ways to make a mark on history, not merely to comprehend it.
My paper addresses two questions which I think have received insufficient treatment in Fairbank criticism: Why should Fairbank be considered a policy advocate when he made his living and professional reputation as an historian? And the larger question, how far have American academic images of China influenced official views in Washington and vice verse? My paper looks at Fairbank’s China experience in a mixture of roles as student, scholar, civilian, diplomat, policy advocate which has helped orient his professional career and impact on the institutionalization of China studies in the United States. As he understands that knowledge can be translated into action only through interaction with governmental and popular opinion, his research has a consistent political purpose in influencing public and governmental thinking. Standing astride two cultures, Fairbank represents the American academician who must bridge two political systems whose interests have rarely coincided. In that sense, he has been a globalist as well as a regionalist.