从古代东方学到现代区域研究——从学科史角度探究当前区域(国别)研究的定位问题
|
摘要
区域研究始于冷战时期的美国,可以被视为殖民主义时代欧洲东方学的现代改良版。当今世界,区域特征对未来发展仍然重要,区域研究渐趋成熟。应该说,区域研究作为正式学科的时间并不长,还缺乏普遍认可的学术标准,但是学者们终归会对这些当初由外界力量带进大学和研究机构的新专业赋予足够的知识内涵。自诞生之日起,区域研究就在现实驱动和学术远景之间、在知识产出和政策关联之间徘徊不定。本文致力于梳理古代、近代东方学到现代、当代区域研究的学科发展史,从历史渊源的角度来探究区域研究的定位问题。
Area studies originated in America in the Cold War, and can be deemed as an improved modern version of European oriental studies in the colonial era. In the world today, the characteristics of various areas matter to their future development, and area studies, as a discipline, has gradually matured. Area studies have been formally recognized as an independent discipline for just a few decades and therefore fall short of well-acknowledged academic standards. However, researchers have enriched this new discipline, which was brought into universities and research institutions by people outside the academic circle, with sufficient theoretical results. Since its birth, the discipline of area studies has been struggling to find its position between practical and academic orientations, as well as between knowledge production and policy relevance. In this context, this paper reviews the evolution from ancient and modern oriental studies to contemporary area studies, in order to explore the orientation of this discipline from the perspective of disciplinary history.
Area studies originated in America in the Cold War, and can be deemed as an improved modern version of European oriental studies in the colonial era. In the world today, the characteristics of various areas matter to their future development, and area studies, as a discipline, has gradually matured. Area studies have been formally recognized as an independent discipline for just a few decades and therefore fall short of well-acknowledged academic standards. However, researchers have enriched this new discipline, which was brought into universities and research institutions by people outside the academic circle, with sufficient theoretical results. Since its birth, the discipline of area studies has been struggling to find its position between practical and academic orientations, as well as between knowledge production and policy relevance. In this context, this paper reviews the evolution from ancient and modern oriental studies to contemporary area studies, in order to explore the orientation of this discipline from the perspective of disciplinary history.
引文
(1)戴维·L桑顿:《美国区域研究的起源、性质与挑战》,载《文明研究》,第1辑,第10页。
(2)参见李晨阳:《区域国别研究的学科化》,载《世界知识》,2018年第2期,第73页。
(1)参见张信刚:《张信刚谈东方学、区域研究和丝路探索》,载《财经》,2017年4月,第25页。
(2)同上,第26页。
(1)参见戴维·L桑顿:《美国区域研究的起源、性质与挑战》,第36页。
(1)参见戴维·L桑顿:《美国区域研究的起源、性质与挑战》,第36页。
(2)参见段九州:《从哈佛看美国的区域研究》,http://opinion.hexun.com/2016-03-11/182695909.html,访问日期:2017年6月10日。
(1)参见刘宝存、孙琪:《美国大学区域研究:发展、影响及争论》,载《比较教育研究》,2013年第11期,第49-54页。
(2)参见布鲁斯·卡明斯:《反思美国区域研究》,http://www.ihss.pku.edu.cn/,访问日期:2017年11月16日。
(3)李爱萍:《美国国际教育:历史、理论和政策》,云南大学出版社2005年版,第25页。
(1)U.S.Department of Education:Higher Education Opportunity Act-2008.
(2)参见李晨阳:《区域国别研究的学科化》,载《世界知识》,2018年第2期,第73页。
(1)参见张信刚:《张信刚谈东方学、区域研究和丝路探索》,载《财经》,2017年4月,第25页。
(2)同上,第26页。
(1)参见戴维·L桑顿:《美国区域研究的起源、性质与挑战》,第36页。
(1)参见戴维·L桑顿:《美国区域研究的起源、性质与挑战》,第36页。
(2)参见段九州:《从哈佛看美国的区域研究》,http://opinion.hexun.com/2016-03-11/182695909.html,访问日期:2017年6月10日。
(1)参见刘宝存、孙琪:《美国大学区域研究:发展、影响及争论》,载《比较教育研究》,2013年第11期,第49-54页。
(2)参见布鲁斯·卡明斯:《反思美国区域研究》,http://www.ihss.pku.edu.cn/,访问日期:2017年11月16日。
(3)李爱萍:《美国国际教育:历史、理论和政策》,云南大学出版社2005年版,第25页。
(1)U.S.Department of Education:Higher Education Opportunity Act-2008.