Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94959
|
| Title: | 戰後日本之中國研究系譜
The Genealogy of “China Studies” in Post-war Japan |
| Authors: | 邵軒磊
Shao, Hsyab Lei |
| Contributors: | 石之瑜
Shih, Chih Yu
邵軒磊
Shao, Hsyab Lei |
| Keywords: | 中國研究
方法論
亞洲學
系譜學
典範分析
社會主義
學術社群
戰後日本
Academic Community
History of Post-war Japan
East Asian Studies
China-study
Genealogy
Marxism,
Methodology
Regime analyze |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-09 13:29:37 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 當代「日本中國認識」1945年二次大戰結束面臨一次重大轉折。戰後開始的「中國研究」主要受到日本對於自身認同重建的看法；以及冷戰國際架構的影響。本文藉由「系譜學方法」，回溯戰後半世紀以來，日本對中國的研究角度經過什麼樣的變化？中日研究群體如何開展及互動？本文發現日本當地中國研究的典範演變，最初是因應西方現代學科的需要，以建立歷史理論與史觀。戰前以東洋史學與區域調查為主要典範。此兩種團體延續到戰後成為史學與區域研究兩種系譜。戰後初期（1945-54）佔有主要論述空間的是左派革命史觀研究群體，主要學術產出是實態調查、社會史方面的資料。第二階段（1955-64）是馬克思主義者對近代化論者，延續戰爭責任論爭中的研究主體問題。第三階段（1965-74）是隨著日本自身發展與文革演進，研究者依照對文革態度而分裂，自此主流是對經濟、政治、國際關係的研究。第四階段（1975-84）民國史觀強調社會主義中國與傳統中國以及中國與周邊國家的「雙重連續性」，這兩個思考脈絡最後集成為溝口的基體論與濱下的體系論。另外出現以近代化（民主化經濟發展）短暫的成為主要論述，之後隨著前兩者理論對西式近代的否定，開始找尋「亞洲價值」。第五階段（1985-94），面臨昭和年代與冷戰結束兩個重要分期，日本學界提出新亞洲學，強調區域多元性以及混成亞洲統合兩大觀念。新亞洲學中，不可避免的也繼承了戰前亞洲學的基本要素。綜觀而言，本研究不僅能提供對中國研究途徑更多的參考面向，也能為台灣的中國大陸研究學界提供更多元的研究方法，更能有助於對當代東亞局勢的瞭解。
Modern “China studies” (sinology, modern china study, etc.) in Japan began in 1945, the end of Pacific War. It was in a very complicated situation because on the one hand, it must take mission on the revival of national confidence. On the other hand, it was influenced by post-war international system. This article attempts to analyze “Japanese China study” from a genealogical perspective. The article also tries to depict the “genealogy” of academic communities of Japanese China study and their research approaches. It is found that the paradigm change began in the need of discipline modernization,in order to build their historical theory and historical views. Two mainstreams before WWII are “touyougaku (orientalism)” and “regional study”. They became two major studies, “history” and “regional science” after war. In the first period (1945-54), the leading group “revolution historian’ (Marxist or lefters) accomplished much research about “village investigation” and social history. In the second period (1955-64), Marxist (lefters) and Modernist debated the question of “research subjectivity” regarding war responsibility. In the third period (1965-74), researcher groups were affected by Culture Revolution, and became radical. After this deep confliction, they became neutral,and advocated to study economics, politics, and international relations of China. In the fourth period (1975-84), “R.O.C. perspective” emphasized “double continuity “ existing between socialist China and traditional China, and between core and periphery China, consisting of “Mizokuchi theory” and “Hamashita theory”. On the other hand, modernization (development theory) also rose up, considering Asian value as opposite of Western value. Therefore, in the fifth period (1985-94), facing the end of Showa period and cold war, scholars start to assert New Asianism, emphasizing diversity and cooperation among Asian countries. We could discover that New Asianism is similar to wartime Asianism, which is a symbol of Japanese China study that time. This study will not only clarify the Sinology in other culture, but also bring more approaches for scholars in Taiwan. |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
東亞研究所 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093260505 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [東亞研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
