区域研究与学科之间的争论与融合
|
摘要
区域研究立足于学科的基础之上,但区域研究与学科两者之间也存在着"特殊性"和"普遍性"的张力,两者之间的鸿沟在上世纪八九十年代之后进一步扩大,区域研究和学科之争愈演愈烈。近年来,国外区域研究学界强调,既需要注意区域研究走向"孤立"和"例外论"的危险,也需要提防因学科本位导致的两者间的等级秩序及对学科的过度偏向。面对区域研究和学科之争的强化,国外学界积极探索区域研究与学科之间的融合,并在具体的路径和方法上取得了进展。跨学科的区域研究的发展面临着来自学科的限制,但也有助于超越区域研究和学科之争。近年兴起的比较区域研究能够从学科基础、方法和视野等方面连接起区域研究和学科。
Although modern area studies is based on disciplines, tensions between area studies' inclination toward specificities and disciplines' inclination toward generalities have existed for a long time. Since the 1980 s and 1990 s, this kind of gap has widened and the controversies between area studies and disciplines have become increasingly fierce. The new trends in international academia of area studies reveal that we should be alert to both the dangers of "isolation" and "exceptionalism" in area studies, and, at the same time, the hierarchies between area studies and disciplines and the tendency to lean toward disciplines. Faced with these debates, the international academia has been trying to probe into the synthesis of area studies and disciplines, and have provided some concrete approaches and methods. While transdisciplinary area studies have to deal with the constraints of disciplines, they can overcome the controversies between area studies and disciplines. Comparative area studies that flourish in recent years can bridge area studies and disciplines in the aspect of disciplinary bases, methods and horizon.
Although modern area studies is based on disciplines, tensions between area studies' inclination toward specificities and disciplines' inclination toward generalities have existed for a long time. Since the 1980 s and 1990 s, this kind of gap has widened and the controversies between area studies and disciplines have become increasingly fierce. The new trends in international academia of area studies reveal that we should be alert to both the dangers of "isolation" and "exceptionalism" in area studies, and, at the same time, the hierarchies between area studies and disciplines and the tendency to lean toward disciplines. Faced with these debates, the international academia has been trying to probe into the synthesis of area studies and disciplines, and have provided some concrete approaches and methods. While transdisciplinary area studies have to deal with the constraints of disciplines, they can overcome the controversies between area studies and disciplines. Comparative area studies that flourish in recent years can bridge area studies and disciplines in the aspect of disciplinary bases, methods and horizon.
引文
(1)“Where is here”,https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/geesteswetenschappen/lias/where-is-here---leiden-university-institute-for-area-studies-lias---2012-and-updates.pdf,p.6,访问日期:2018年7月1日。
(2)Lucian W.Pye,“The Confrontation between Discipline and Area Studies”,in Lucian W.Pye ed.,Political Science and Area Studies:Rivals or Partners?Indiana University Press,1975,pp.5-6.
(3)Jan Kubik,“Between Contextualization and Comparison:A Thorny Relationship between East European Studies and Disciplinary‘Mainstreams’”,in East European Politics and Societies,Vol.29,No.2,2015,p.353.
(4)Gerardo L.Munck and Richard Snyder,eds.,Passion,Craft,and Method in Comparative Politics,Baltimore,MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press,2007,p.54.
(5)[美]弗朗西斯·福山:“学术界何以有负于国家:区域研究的衰落”,载《国外社会科学》2005年第2期,第91页。
(1)Robert H.Bates,“Letter From the President:Area Studies and the Discipline”,in APSA-CP,Vol.7,No.1,1996,p.1.
(2)Chalmers Johnson,“Preconception vs.Observation,Or the Contributions of Rational Choice Theory and Area Studies to Contemporary Political Science”,in Political Science and Politics,Vol.30,No.2,1997.
(3)Chikwendu Christian Ukaegbu,“Commentary:Area Studies and the Disciplines”,in Africa Today,Vol.45,No.3-4,p.324.
(1)Petersson,Bo,“We Don’t Do Area Studies:Reflections on the Development of the Genre of Research from a Political Science Perspective”,in Forum of Ethno GeoPolitics,Vol.3,No.2,2015,p.40.
(2)Amitav Acharya,International Relations and Area Studies:Towards a New Synthesis?Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies,Nanyang Technological University,2006,p.8.
(3)Kai Ostwald and Paul Schuler,“Context and Comparison in Southeast Asia:The Practical Side of the Area Studies-Discipline Debate”,in Pacific Affairs,Vol.88,No.4,2015.
(4)Pinar Bilgin,“What future for Middle Eastern studies?”in Futures,Vol.38,No.5,2006,p.580.
(1)[美]弗朗西斯·福山:“学术界何以有负于国家:区域研究的衰落”,第91页。
(2)Kai Ostwald and Paul Schuler,“Context and Comparison in Southeast Asia:The Practical Side of the Area Studies-Discipline Debate”,p.880.
(3)[美]欧博文:“专业化时代的中国政治研究”,载《国外理论动态》2011年第8期,第53页。
(4)William Hurst,“Treating What Ails the Study of Chinese Politics”,in Ivan Franceschini and Nicholas Loubere eds.,Made in China Yearbook 2017:Gilded Age,pp.106-111,ANU Press.
(5)Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge,“Crossroads Studies:From Spatial Containers to Interactions in Differentiated Spatialities”,in Crossroads Asia Working Paper Series,No.15,2014,p.22.
(6)张世泽,张世强:“区域研究之下的南亚视野--从美国学院体制中南亚研究的发展与困境谈起”,载《问题与研究》(台湾)2008年第47卷第1期,第101页。
(1)Pinar Bilgin,“What future for Middle Eastern studies?”in Futures,Vol.38,No.5,2006,p.579.
(2)Lin Chun,“Discipline and power:knowledge of China in political science”,in Critical Asian Studies,Vol.49,No.4,2017,p.505.
(3)Vincent Houben,“The New Area Studies and Southeast Asian History”,in Dorisea Working Paper,Issue 4,2013,p.5.
(4)武内進一「地域研究とディシプリン:アフリカ研究の立場から」、『アジア経済』、第16页。
(1)Thomas B.Pepinsky,“Disciplining Southeast Asian Studies”,in Sojourn:Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia,Vol.30,No.1,2015,p.221.
(2)Donald K.Emmerson,“Southeast Asia in political science:terms of enlistment”,in Kuhonta,Erik Martinez,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu,eds.,Southeast Asia in Political Science:Theory,Region,and Qualitative Analysis,Stanford University Press,2008,p.304.
(3)Erik Martinez Kuhonta,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu,“Introduction:The Contributions of Southeast Asian Political Studies to Political Science”,in Kuhonta,Erik Martinez,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu,eds.,Southeast Asia in Political Science:Theory,Region,and Qualitative Analysis,p.6.
(1)武内進一「地域研究とディシプリン:アフリカ研究の立場から」、14-16页。
(2)“Where is here”,p.7.
(3)Anna-Katharina et al.,“Concluding Reflections:The Art of Science Policy for 21st Century Area Studies”,in Katja Mielke,and Anna-Katharina Hornidge,eds.,Area Studies at the Crossroads,Palgrave Macmillan,2017,p.337.
(4)武内進一「地域研究とディシプリン:アフリカ研究の立場から」、14-16页。
(1)Robert H.Bates,“Area Studies and Political Science:Rupture and Possible Synthesis”,in Africa Today,Vol.44,No.2,1997,pp.127-130.
(2)Katja Mielke and Andreas Wilde,“The Role of Area Studies in Theory Production:ADifferentiation of Mid-Range Concepts and the Example of Social Order”,in Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge,eds.,Area Studies at the Crossroads,p.173.
(3)Vincent Houben,“New Area Studies,Translation and Mid-Range Concepts”,in Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge,eds.,Area Studies at the Crossroads,p.207.
(1)Erik Martinez Kuhonta,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu,“Introduction:The Contributions of Southeast Asian Political Studies to Political Science”,pp.12-23.
(2)牛可:“美国地区研究创生期的思想史”,载《国际政治研究》2016年第6期,第22页。
(1)[美]沃勒斯坦等著,刘锋译:《开放社会科学》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997年版,第41页。
(2)武内進一「地域研究とディシプリン:アフリカ研究の立場から」、第12页。
(3)Mikko Huotari,“Introduction:Fostering Methodological Dialogue in Southeast Asian Studies”,in Huotari,Mikko,Jürgen Rüland and Judith Schlehe,eds.,Methodology and Research Practice in Southeast Asian Studies,Springer,2014,p.8.
(1)Jan Kubik,“Between Contextualization and Comparison:A Thorny Relationship between East European Studies and Disciplinary‘Mainstreams’”,p.352.
(2)Richard D.Lambert,“Blurring the Disciplinary Boundaries:Area Studies in the United States”,in American Behavioral Scientist,Vol.33,No.6,1990,p.726.
(1)Thomas B.Pepinsky,“Disciplining Southeast Asian Studies”,p.223.
(2)Richard D.Lambert,“Blurring the Disciplinary Boundaries:Area Studies in the United States”,p.730.
(3)Chansa-Ngavej,Vee and Kyu Young Lee,“Does Area Studies Need Theory?Revisiting the Debate on the Future of Area Studies”,in The Korean Journal of International Studies,Vol.15,No.1,2017,p.93.
(1)Valerie Bunce,“Comparative Democratization:Big and Bounded Generalizations”,in Comparative Political Studies,Vol.33,No.6-7,2000,pp.703-734.
(2)Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies and Comparative Area Studies:Opportunities and Challenges for the GIGA:A Discussion Paper”,in GIGA Discussion Paper,October 2006.
(3)Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies,Comparative Area Studies,and the Study of Politics:Context,Substance,and Methodological Challenges”,in Zeitschriftfür Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft,Vol.1,No.1,2007,p.113.
(4)Ahram A.I.,“The Theory and Method of Comparative Area Studies”,in Qualitative Research,Vol.11,No.1,2011,p.84.
(1)关于这三种比较区域研究的路径的介绍可参考Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies,Comparative Area Studies,and the Study of Politics:Context,Substance,and Methodological Challenges”,p.110;Ahram A.I.,“The Theory and Method of Comparative Area Studies”,p.81;Patrick K?llner,Rudra Sil and Ariel I.Ahram,“Comparative Area Studies:What It Is,What It Can Do”,in Ariel I.Ahram,Patrick K?llner and Rudra Sil,eds.,Comparative Area Studies:Methodological Rationales and Cross-Regional Applications,Oxford University Press,2018,pp.1-30.
(2)Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies,Comparative Area Studies,and the Study of Politics:Context,Substance,and Methodological Challenges”,p.115.
(3)Patrick K?llner,Rudra Sil,and Ariel I.Ahram,“Comparative Area Studies:What It Is,What It Can Do”,p.10.
(1)Ibid.
(2)Mikko Huotari and Jürgen Rüland,“Introduction:Context,Concepts and Comparison in Southeast Asian Studies”,p.415.
(3)Patrick K?llner,Rudra Sil,and Ariel I.Ahram,“Comparative Area Studies:What It Is,What It Can Do”,p.20.
(4)Ibid.,p.1.
(1)Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies,Comparative Area Studies,and the Study of Politics:Context,Substance,and Methodological Challenges”,p.116.
(2)Mikko Huotari and Jürgen Rüland,“Introduction:Context,Concepts and Comparison in Southeast Asian Studies”,p.432.
(3)Ibid.,p.425.
(4)Mikko Huotari,“Introduction:Fostering Methodological Dialogue in Southeast Asian Studies”,p.15.
(1)任晓:“本土知识的全球意义--论地区研究与21世纪中国社会科学的追求”,载《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2008年第5期,第95页。
(2)Lucian W.Pye,“The Confrontation between Discipline and Area Studies”,in Lucian W.Pye ed.,Political Science and Area Studies:Rivals or Partners?Indiana University Press,1975,pp.5-6.
(3)Jan Kubik,“Between Contextualization and Comparison:A Thorny Relationship between East European Studies and Disciplinary‘Mainstreams’”,in East European Politics and Societies,Vol.29,No.2,2015,p.353.
(4)Gerardo L.Munck and Richard Snyder,eds.,Passion,Craft,and Method in Comparative Politics,Baltimore,MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press,2007,p.54.
(5)[美]弗朗西斯·福山:“学术界何以有负于国家:区域研究的衰落”,载《国外社会科学》2005年第2期,第91页。
(1)Robert H.Bates,“Letter From the President:Area Studies and the Discipline”,in APSA-CP,Vol.7,No.1,1996,p.1.
(2)Chalmers Johnson,“Preconception vs.Observation,Or the Contributions of Rational Choice Theory and Area Studies to Contemporary Political Science”,in Political Science and Politics,Vol.30,No.2,1997.
(3)Chikwendu Christian Ukaegbu,“Commentary:Area Studies and the Disciplines”,in Africa Today,Vol.45,No.3-4,p.324.
(1)Petersson,Bo,“We Don’t Do Area Studies:Reflections on the Development of the Genre of Research from a Political Science Perspective”,in Forum of Ethno GeoPolitics,Vol.3,No.2,2015,p.40.
(2)Amitav Acharya,International Relations and Area Studies:Towards a New Synthesis?Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies,Nanyang Technological University,2006,p.8.
(3)Kai Ostwald and Paul Schuler,“Context and Comparison in Southeast Asia:The Practical Side of the Area Studies-Discipline Debate”,in Pacific Affairs,Vol.88,No.4,2015.
(4)Pinar Bilgin,“What future for Middle Eastern studies?”in Futures,Vol.38,No.5,2006,p.580.
(1)[美]弗朗西斯·福山:“学术界何以有负于国家:区域研究的衰落”,第91页。
(2)Kai Ostwald and Paul Schuler,“Context and Comparison in Southeast Asia:The Practical Side of the Area Studies-Discipline Debate”,p.880.
(3)[美]欧博文:“专业化时代的中国政治研究”,载《国外理论动态》2011年第8期,第53页。
(4)William Hurst,“Treating What Ails the Study of Chinese Politics”,in Ivan Franceschini and Nicholas Loubere eds.,Made in China Yearbook 2017:Gilded Age,pp.106-111,ANU Press.
(5)Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge,“Crossroads Studies:From Spatial Containers to Interactions in Differentiated Spatialities”,in Crossroads Asia Working Paper Series,No.15,2014,p.22.
(6)张世泽,张世强:“区域研究之下的南亚视野--从美国学院体制中南亚研究的发展与困境谈起”,载《问题与研究》(台湾)2008年第47卷第1期,第101页。
(1)Pinar Bilgin,“What future for Middle Eastern studies?”in Futures,Vol.38,No.5,2006,p.579.
(2)Lin Chun,“Discipline and power:knowledge of China in political science”,in Critical Asian Studies,Vol.49,No.4,2017,p.505.
(3)Vincent Houben,“The New Area Studies and Southeast Asian History”,in Dorisea Working Paper,Issue 4,2013,p.5.
(4)武内進一「地域研究とディシプリン:アフリカ研究の立場から」、『アジア経済』、第16页。
(1)Thomas B.Pepinsky,“Disciplining Southeast Asian Studies”,in Sojourn:Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia,Vol.30,No.1,2015,p.221.
(2)Donald K.Emmerson,“Southeast Asia in political science:terms of enlistment”,in Kuhonta,Erik Martinez,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu,eds.,Southeast Asia in Political Science:Theory,Region,and Qualitative Analysis,Stanford University Press,2008,p.304.
(3)Erik Martinez Kuhonta,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu,“Introduction:The Contributions of Southeast Asian Political Studies to Political Science”,in Kuhonta,Erik Martinez,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu,eds.,Southeast Asia in Political Science:Theory,Region,and Qualitative Analysis,p.6.
(1)武内進一「地域研究とディシプリン:アフリカ研究の立場から」、14-16页。
(2)“Where is here”,p.7.
(3)Anna-Katharina et al.,“Concluding Reflections:The Art of Science Policy for 21st Century Area Studies”,in Katja Mielke,and Anna-Katharina Hornidge,eds.,Area Studies at the Crossroads,Palgrave Macmillan,2017,p.337.
(4)武内進一「地域研究とディシプリン:アフリカ研究の立場から」、14-16页。
(1)Robert H.Bates,“Area Studies and Political Science:Rupture and Possible Synthesis”,in Africa Today,Vol.44,No.2,1997,pp.127-130.
(2)Katja Mielke and Andreas Wilde,“The Role of Area Studies in Theory Production:ADifferentiation of Mid-Range Concepts and the Example of Social Order”,in Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge,eds.,Area Studies at the Crossroads,p.173.
(3)Vincent Houben,“New Area Studies,Translation and Mid-Range Concepts”,in Katja Mielke and Anna-Katharina Hornidge,eds.,Area Studies at the Crossroads,p.207.
(1)Erik Martinez Kuhonta,Dan Slater and Tuong Vu,“Introduction:The Contributions of Southeast Asian Political Studies to Political Science”,pp.12-23.
(2)牛可:“美国地区研究创生期的思想史”,载《国际政治研究》2016年第6期,第22页。
(1)[美]沃勒斯坦等著,刘锋译:《开放社会科学》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997年版,第41页。
(2)武内進一「地域研究とディシプリン:アフリカ研究の立場から」、第12页。
(3)Mikko Huotari,“Introduction:Fostering Methodological Dialogue in Southeast Asian Studies”,in Huotari,Mikko,Jürgen Rüland and Judith Schlehe,eds.,Methodology and Research Practice in Southeast Asian Studies,Springer,2014,p.8.
(1)Jan Kubik,“Between Contextualization and Comparison:A Thorny Relationship between East European Studies and Disciplinary‘Mainstreams’”,p.352.
(2)Richard D.Lambert,“Blurring the Disciplinary Boundaries:Area Studies in the United States”,in American Behavioral Scientist,Vol.33,No.6,1990,p.726.
(1)Thomas B.Pepinsky,“Disciplining Southeast Asian Studies”,p.223.
(2)Richard D.Lambert,“Blurring the Disciplinary Boundaries:Area Studies in the United States”,p.730.
(3)Chansa-Ngavej,Vee and Kyu Young Lee,“Does Area Studies Need Theory?Revisiting the Debate on the Future of Area Studies”,in The Korean Journal of International Studies,Vol.15,No.1,2017,p.93.
(1)Valerie Bunce,“Comparative Democratization:Big and Bounded Generalizations”,in Comparative Political Studies,Vol.33,No.6-7,2000,pp.703-734.
(2)Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies and Comparative Area Studies:Opportunities and Challenges for the GIGA:A Discussion Paper”,in GIGA Discussion Paper,October 2006.
(3)Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies,Comparative Area Studies,and the Study of Politics:Context,Substance,and Methodological Challenges”,in Zeitschriftfür Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft,Vol.1,No.1,2007,p.113.
(4)Ahram A.I.,“The Theory and Method of Comparative Area Studies”,in Qualitative Research,Vol.11,No.1,2011,p.84.
(1)关于这三种比较区域研究的路径的介绍可参考Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies,Comparative Area Studies,and the Study of Politics:Context,Substance,and Methodological Challenges”,p.110;Ahram A.I.,“The Theory and Method of Comparative Area Studies”,p.81;Patrick K?llner,Rudra Sil and Ariel I.Ahram,“Comparative Area Studies:What It Is,What It Can Do”,in Ariel I.Ahram,Patrick K?llner and Rudra Sil,eds.,Comparative Area Studies:Methodological Rationales and Cross-Regional Applications,Oxford University Press,2018,pp.1-30.
(2)Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies,Comparative Area Studies,and the Study of Politics:Context,Substance,and Methodological Challenges”,p.115.
(3)Patrick K?llner,Rudra Sil,and Ariel I.Ahram,“Comparative Area Studies:What It Is,What It Can Do”,p.10.
(1)Ibid.
(2)Mikko Huotari and Jürgen Rüland,“Introduction:Context,Concepts and Comparison in Southeast Asian Studies”,p.415.
(3)Patrick K?llner,Rudra Sil,and Ariel I.Ahram,“Comparative Area Studies:What It Is,What It Can Do”,p.20.
(4)Ibid.,p.1.
(1)Matthias Basedau and Patrick K?llner,“Area Studies,Comparative Area Studies,and the Study of Politics:Context,Substance,and Methodological Challenges”,p.116.
(2)Mikko Huotari and Jürgen Rüland,“Introduction:Context,Concepts and Comparison in Southeast Asian Studies”,p.432.
(3)Ibid.,p.425.
(4)Mikko Huotari,“Introduction:Fostering Methodological Dialogue in Southeast Asian Studies”,p.15.
(1)任晓:“本土知识的全球意义--论地区研究与21世纪中国社会科学的追求”,载《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2008年第5期,第95页。