陈跃红 北京大学
Chen, Yuehong, Peking University
原文Original
学科界线与跨文化方法——问题意识与方法视野下的汉学与比较文学
在一个崇尚非本质论的学术语境下，试图从学术的价值目标、问题意识和方法论关系之间去区分学科之间的本质差异和内在联系，无疑是一件吃力不讨好的事情。但是，我们现在似乎也还没有到达可以一律抹平知识差异和学科界限的理想时代，学界的主流也还是以各司其职的专业圈子为主，那么，从问题意识和方法学的关系去尝试厘清不同学科的可能界线，也并非完全没有理论意义和现实价值。
关于汉学的血统是“舶来”还是“土生”？是称“汉学”还是叫“中国学”才合于学理？汉学与国学的关系如何？这种种的争论已经持续了一段时间，至今也还看不出有形成定于一尊之结论的可能。
而近几年由于比较文学在中国的兴盛，跨文化研究在当下的蔚然成风，汉学与以跨文化对话为主要方法论的中外比较文学研究又纠结在了一起，某些论述甚至有将其视为学科一体的倾向，其理由主要是认为他们都具有诸如研究对象、研究范式、研究方法等方面的类同性。本文对这种论述的学理性持质疑的观点。
基于对十九世纪以来各种现代学科生成和全球播散历史的把握，作者认为，无论所谓国际“汉学”（sinology）还是“比较文学”（comparative literature），就其创生形成的历史上看，都是成长于欧洲这个所谓“西方”的现代学科语境中，历史上也一直是属于西方的学科，至于它们后来向着中国的播散，或者说引进，其各自的境遇和再生长命运则是有明显区别的。
就西方汉学或者说国际中国学而言，我们可以利用它的成果、引进借鉴其方法，可以深入进行汉学研究之再研究。但是就学科而言，当代中国不能因为古代中国曾经有过汉宋之学的学派名目之争，在今天的中国就可以南橘北枳地去再建设一门与国学对立，或者说与各种关于我们中国本土文史哲社等学科对立的所谓当代中国汉学学科。虽然研究对象和某些方法大致相似，但是国际上的汉学它所研究的中国这个“他者”与本土中国学科研究的中国这个“自我”，就其价值需求、学术目标、问题意识等方面都有着较多本质的差异。
至于比较文学则不一样，我们并无像国学与国际汉学之间这样的，与比较文学相对应的本土学科，而近代以来中国遭遇的中外尤其是中西冲突、碰撞和压制的历史命运，以及当下急迫地要在文化和学术上追赶超越，以实现学术现代性和国际化的需求，使得比较文学的整体学科架构和方法体系都可以加以引进和挪用。基于中国文化和学术的近现代遭遇，以及由此形成的突出问题意识，“比较”或者说跨文化对话性的研究，已经成了当代中国学术研究的范式和方法“宿命”之一，其在突出问题意识本质差异和范式方法重建基础上的研究展开，以及在中国和非西方文化领域的发展，甚至有可能比西方的比较学科更有可能实现比较文学的根本学科理念和价值目标。
因此我们或许可以说，尽管汉学和比较文学都与跨文化交流和比较研究的方法分不开，但是学科的界线还是应该而且能够划清的，而学界对于它们在当下中国借鉴利用的态度和分寸也还是应该有所区别为好。
译文Translation
Disciplinary Boundaries and Inter-cultural Methods: Sinology and Comparative Literature from the Perspective of Problem Awareness and Methodical Horizons
Within an academic context that does appreciate non-essential theories, to try to distinguish the essential differences of the disciplines and their intrinsic relationships seen from the value intention of scholarship, from the point of problem awareness and methodology, this will be an arduous and thankless task. However, presently we have not yet reached an ideal era in which we might be able to eradicate the differences of knowledge and the boundaries between the disciplines, and the mainstream scholarship is working within circles of professionals who mainly stay within their groups, and so it will not be without theoretical meaning and practical value to make an outline of the possible boundaries between disciplines according to the problem awareness and the methodology.
Is the blood lineage of sinology “imported from abroad” or is it “native”? Is the expression “sinology” (hanxue) scientific or does only “China Studies” (zhongguo xue) comply with academic principles? What is the relationship between sinology and China studies? These debates have been going on for some time, and until today there is no sign that we will arrive at a conclusion approved by all.
Since comparative literature studies are becoming popular in the last years in China, cross-cultural studies have become prevalent, and sinology, the main methodology of inter-cultural dialogue, and comparative literature studies are coming together again. Some reviews even see this as a tendency to unify the disciplines, and the main reason for this is that these disciplines all have similarities in regard to their study object, study pattern, methodology etc. This paper wants to voice some doubts as to the academic soundness of these viewpoints.
Based on the knowledge regarding the formation of all kinds of modern disciplines in the 19th century and the history of their global spread, the author points out that both “sinology” (hanxue) and “comparative literature” (bijiao wenxue), insofar as the history of their formation is concerned, originated in the modern academic context of Europe, which we call “the West”, and throughout their history they always belonged to the western disciplines, and this is obviously very different from the later fate or rebirth of these disciplines as they spread in China or were introduced to China.
As to western sinology, or let us say “international China studies”, we can use the results of these studies, we can take their methods as a reference, we can carry out in-depth re-studies of sinological studies, but as the disciplines are concerned, contemporary China cannot intentionally move in the opposite direction and try to establish a discipline in China that is opposed to sinology or the so-called discipline of “Contemporary Chinese Sinology” which is opposed to all kinds of studies that are concerned with Chinese literature, history, philosophy, sociology etc., just because in the antiquity of China there occurred once a quarrel about the terms for the schools of the Han and Song dynasties. Even if the study objects and some methods are rather similar, but the “other” which is the study object of international sinology and the “self” which is studied by native Chinese disciplines have some essential differences as to their value demands, study goals, problem awareness etc.
But comparative literature is different, because we do not have a native discipline of comparative literature resembling the relationship of “national studies” (guo xue) to international sinology. In the period of modern history the Chinese fate mainly has been a history of the conflict between China and the West, a history of bumping together and of suppression, and China needed immediately to follow up with the West in terms of culture and scholarship, and there was the demand for the realization of modern scholarship and for internationalization, and so the whole framework of comparative literature and its methodology was imported and transplanted to China. Based on the modern fate of Chinese culture and scholarship, and because of the clear problem awareness that was thus formed, “comparison” or inter-cultural dialogue studies have already become the pattern and method of contemporary Chinese studies as one of their “unavoidable elements”. The essential differences of the marked problem awareness and the development of studies that are built upon re-established methods and patterns, and the developments in China and in non-western areas may be able to display the basic disciplinary ideas and value aims of comparative literature, possibly even better that western comparative literature studies.
Therefore we may say that even if sinology and comparative literature cannot be separated from the methods of inter-cultural dialogue and comparative studies, the boundaries of the disciplines should and can be clearly distinguished, and the scholars who use these studies as a reference should do so with an attitude of discernment and distinction.