史华罗 意大利智德罗马大学
Santangelo, Paolo, Sapienza University of Rome
原文Original
Re-constructing Values, Representation of Reality and Imagery of the Past
Globalization process, communication facilities and hybridization phenomena cannot but reflect on our learning and the way we re-think reality and the past. Obviously this is a general trend that reflects not only on Sinological studies, but on every discipline, from the various histories to literatures, philosophy, fine arts, and so on. Dichotomies such as East and West, or progress-tradition polarizations have no much meaning in this new century, characterized by a more and more multi-cultural global civilization, so that discussions on ‘Orientalism’ seem really obsolete. Different however is the case of Chinese studies. In my opinion the main point is that, although Sinology is a concept contradictory and with fuzzy borders, it is yet a complex of disciplines that revolve around a dynamic cultural-political-economic entity, China, that has shaped and shapes a part of the world history.
Thus, sinology is not just a study on a past culture or on contemporary geo-political assets, but it implies the critical reflection on one’s culture and experiences in comparison with another dynamic civilization, or the reflection on self-identity in terms of vision of the world, behavior, etc.
Especially now sinology may be considered mainly a challenge to re-visit one’s learning by refining one’s knowledge, in order to understand more and more the processes of human mentality, human relations, social and political organization solutions, etc. This is the reason why the topic of this conference “Sinology takes it as a platform for cultural exchanges” is so important. We should emphasize, therefore, that now sinological studies are mainly Chinese studies on the basis of a cross-cultural approach.
However, as any comparative study, it is very tricky, as it involves the necessary combination of different philosophical and religious traditions, but also the contemporary resort to the conceptual tools of the civilization which is object of study, while everyone carries his/her own notions from his/her cultural background. The complexity of cultural gap becomes more and more difficult matter if we deal with the world of passions and emotions, where we do not have a concrete and defined object, but where our mind and body are directly involved. Concepts that at first glance seem analogous in China and in the modern western society, such as friendship, family bonds, non-interference, self-cultivation, introspection, and withdrawal from society are fundamentally different because they are based on different approach of self and privacy, religion and morality.
Western researchers are more or less accustomed to symbols derived from the linguistic-allusive Western koiné based on the Greek-Judaic-Christian tradition. What is still missing for instance is the establishment of kind of repertoire of “associationist principles” for the Chinese culture – period by period - based on its own traditions reconstructed in a rich database of materials, with references to basic knowledge, prejudices, common sense, and with possible transcultural parallels.
Finally some notes will be given on an attempt of representing the inner reality for searching the deep structures of a culture and its history and to the different background of the basic concepts.
译文Translation
重构的价值，复现的真实，与想象中的过去
全球化进程、通信技术及文化混杂现象定会影响到我们的认知，并影响我们重新思索现实与过去的方式。显然，这个大趋势不仅会影响汉学研究，也会影响从历史到文学、哲学、美术等各门学科。东方与西方、先进与传统的二分法在新世纪已经失去意义。这个新世纪的特征是全球文明越来越趋向多元化，因此有关“东方主义”的讨论似乎非常陈旧迂腐。不过，中国研究是一个例外。在我看来，最重要的是，尽管汉学这个概念有一些矛盾性，学科边界也不明晰，但它是一个学科复合体，围绕着中国这个有活力的文化、政治、经济实体展开，而中国塑造了并且正塑造着世界历史的一个部分。
因此，汉学不仅是对过去文化与当代地缘政治资产的研究，它还意味着面对另一个有活力的文明之时，应对自己的文化和经验进行批判性反思；或者从世界、行为等视角来反思自我身份。
尤其是现在，汉学也许可以被视作一种挑战，通过改进我们的知识来重新审视我们的学识。以能更好地理解人类心智、人际关系、社会和政治机构的解决方案等。因此，本次大会的主题“汉学是文化交流的平台”才如此重要。因此，我们应该强调指出，今日之汉学研究主要就是指建立在跨文化方法之上的中国研究。
但是，与其他任何比较研究一样，汉学研究相当复杂。这是因为汉学必须结合不同的哲学和宗教传统，即使每个研究者都携带着各自文化背景中的固有观念，却又要借助中华文明这一被研究对象的某些观念。当我们应对这个激情与情感的世界时，文化差异的复杂性就变得更加严重。在这个世界中，我们没有一个实在、确定的对象，身心却直接参与其中。某些概念，诸如友谊、家庭关系、互不干涉、修身、自省、归隐等，初看起来在中西方似乎并无不同，但实际上是全然不同的概念，因为它们建立在看待自我与隐私、宗教与道德的不同态度上。
西方学者多少会更加习惯于那些源自当时西方通用语言（古希腊语）的象征，其基于希腊-犹太-基督教传统之上。目前尚欠缺的是如何在中国传统基础上，参考相关资料，为中国文化建立起一种具有“联想原则”的传统知识储备。
本文最后将会提出几点尝试，力图再现汉学研究的内在本质，以寻找一种文化与其历史之间的深层结构，以及一些基本概念的不同背景。