温伟耀 香港中文大学
Wen, Weiyao, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
原文Original
跨文化心理视域中的汉学研究
我在第一届世界汉学会议（2007）的论文[1]中，提出汉学不能够只停留在好奇和欣赏的层次，而是必须透过亲身体验实践才能够真实把握的转化生命的学问。这一种研究者也要做出自我反思和开放被转化的历程，是当前汉学领域之中最嫌不足而仍有待发展之处。本论文沿着前文的意向，进一步探索国外汉学研究者在研究过程中的跨文化心理动力，指出其中几个特别值得关注的方面。
国外汉学家对中国文化的研究，也可以被视为一种跨文化沟通的历程。问题是，这种与移民经验不完全相同的跨文化沟通历程，是否除了对文本的“知性沟通”，也必须兼具生活在中国本土的“社会沟通”经验？作为一种“沟通行为”，汉学研究是否可以只将研究对象视为纯粹无生命的客观他者（it），而没有预备接纳对方的反馈与挑战？正如齐美尔（Georg Simmel）的研究指出，跨文化经验由“陌生人”开始而到达能够安顿于他者文化的“自己人”，其间必须经历深刻的相互同化、相互转化（reciprocal assimilation and transformation）的体会。中国作为东道主文化（host culture），对于国外汉学家从事对自己文化研究的努力，一般都表现出友善和欢迎的态度。但在汉学家的一方，又需要怎样的自我转化，去为了他/她的研究对象而进行跨文化适应（cross-cultural adaptation）呢？
国外汉学家的跨文化经验，无可避免地也是一种内心转化（internal transformation）的历程。我提出特别值得注意的三个方面：一、摆脱不自觉的种族本位主义（ethnocentrism）。 这是对国外汉学研究者的学问与认知能力一种不同层次的要求，是关于研究者的性格与自我醒觉心理素质的领域。例如：站在“现代”的理念立场去审视中国“前现代”文本的理解过程；以“低语境敏感文化（low-context culture）”立场去剖析“高语境敏感文化（high-context culture）”现象的权力结构与运作。二、以偏盖全（stereotypes）的陷阱。这种将中国文化的一些特征普遍化（generalization）与二分化（dichotomization）的倾向，特别容易发生在被誉为“中国通”的学者身上，因为他们经常须要以简化的方式向自己国人解说中国人的文化行为，多于真切地全面接触中国社会不同地域、不同阶层实况的经验。三、跨文化聆听（cross-cultural listening）的能力。汉学研究不止于对汉语的把握与理解（虽然似乎是必需要的条件），也需要包括奠基于中国历史经验的移情共感（empathy）与敢于解构自身文化视域的开放性（openness）。这种“走出自己、进入对方”的跨文化聆听能力，对于研究和真正理解中国这个既古老又复杂的民族及其遗产，显得尤为重要。
总结国外汉学研究的跨文化心理探索，我提出一个可以称为“多元文化身分认同（multicultural identity）与转化学习历程（transformative learning process）”的研究模式。国外汉学家不是中国人，也不需要成为中国人。但他/她虽然以立足于自身文化作为出发点，却不断需要具备开放的、敏锐的自我解构与重构的勇气，让他/她的汉学研究成为自我批判和自我充实的学习历程。
注释：
[1]温伟耀：《生命的转化与超拔—我的基督宗教汉语神学思考》（北京：宗教文化出版社，2009），第2-17页。
译文Translation
Sinology from a Cross-cultural Psychological Perspective
In this essay I am going to look at the possible internal transformation of a Sinologist from a cross-cultural psychological perspective. I have argued in my earlier essay at the First Conference on Sinology (2007) that if the Chinese ways of self-cultivation and pursuits of harmony in social relationships and with the Nature have their perennial values beyond mere classical interests of historical past, Sinology would call for life changing self-transformation of the Sinologist him/herself. We can look at such internal transformations as “intellectual migration” experiences and propose a few observations which might have been overlooked when Sinologists immerse themselves in the sea of research materials.
Sinology as a kind of intellectual migration is, of course, not exactly the same as sojourners’ experience of moving from one country to another. However, they share similar psychological processes of intercultural adaptation and may be eventually assimilation. There are two questions which can be raised when we compare the two: (1) According to psychological studies, intercultural communication must be highly experiential for the development of an individual’s intercultural competence. Can a Sinologist accomplish his/her job by merely having intellectual encounter with Chinese subjects in the library, without actually having lived with the people, which is essential for the attainment of a higher degree of intercultural competence through interpersonal contact? (2) Intercultural communication calls for reciprocal assimilation and transformation. To what extent should a Sinologist acquire the readiness for and an understanding of the challenges of crossing cultures in his/her studies?
The dynamic of cross-cultural adaptation, if it should happen, in the proceeding of a Sinologist’s pursuit calls our attention to (1) unaware ethnocentrism: If understanding is interpreting, all relationships reflect the participants’ worldviews. I do not mean that a Sinologist would intentionally hold an ethnocentric stand while interpreting his/her research findings. However, a thinker from a “low-context culture” would need tremendous sensitivity in order to make sense of power nexus and operation in a “high-context culture” in his/her judgment. In addition to linguistic barriers, perception also matters when a modern interpreter attempts to analyze a Chinese pre-modern text. (2) Temptation of stereotypes: China experts tend to make quick generalizations and easy dichotomization of Chinese characteristics when conveying their studies to the public. Such a “Barnum Effect” of “one-size-fits-all descriptions” may help to communicate with the audience but is devastating to a genuine recognition of the heterogeneity and complexity of the 21st century Chinese who are undergoing radical social and economic transformation since the era of China’s reform and opening to the global world. (3) Ability of cross-cultural listening: “Listening” for a researcher means the text he/she is studying is not only an “it” but also a source which will bring in self-transformation. How capable a Sinologist is of seeing from a Chinese perspective, walking in a Chinese shoes and putting him/herself in the place of a Chinese is more than a linguistic and academic training. It matters with one’s adaptive personality which consists of a mentality of empathy, openness and positivity towards self-deconstruction and reconstruction.
To conclude our study, I would suggest a model which can be called “multicultural identity and transformative learning process” for the enhancement of cross-cultural personality for Sinologists.