施擬夏化（Sinicization）的文化機制：四位亞裔離散學者對中國的遭遇與選擇

本文試透過這四位學者的中國論述歸納施擬夏化的文化機制，包括黃朝翰的科學觀、入江昭的中間主義、金淳基的綜合模式與譚中的地緣文明批判，來歸納這個盎格魯中華場域的兩個主要面向。簡言之，他們似乎都在設法答覆因為身為亞裔的英語作家而遭遇的兩個問題：第一，該如何於盎格魯中華這個場域中定位自己？亦即，中國是否應該屬於一個與身為研究者的自己相同的世界秩序？第二，實際上應該要如何評估中國？亦即，中國是否應該以歐美文明的價值為依歸？這兩個問題分別影射了與研究者本身身分直接相關的問題，是故，自己在論述上如何處理中國，涉及到他們在所屬社群中的自我定位。表面來看，金淳基與入江昭似乎因為在美國學界有深厚的關係，而傾向於將中國置於西方普遍性的價值之下，而黃朝翰與金淳基則同因自己的母國處在中國的邊陲，而傾向接受中國與自己處於同一種政治秩序中。譚中則因為未與美國學術圈來往而又出身於中國基層，對中國有一種近乎自然而然的與眾不同感。這四位遭遇不同文明脈絡的學者，仍不可避免地要對文化資源進行選擇性的挪用，賦予筆下的中國以某種意義。透過進入盎格魯中華的論述空間，他們所處的隱而不顯的位置，促成他們在學術論述與學者生涯中，選擇自己的認同策略，以便讓中國能適應於他們所處的世界，也讓他們能適應於關於中國現象的演化，這個相互構成的雙向過程，厥為「施擬夏化」。

關鍵字

施擬夏化；中國崛起；入江昭；金淳基；譚中；黃朝翰

並列摘要

To understand the cultural mechanism of cultural Sinicization, discursive analysis of this article shows that the selected four academics consciously manage their liminal positions through scholarship: Kim's synthetic analysis, Iriye's centrist mediation, Tan's geocivilizational critique and Wong's scientific Chineseness. In their work on China, there appear at least two common puzzles that call for answers. How do they place themselves in the Sinic world: does China belong to an identical or a different ontological order? And how do they want China to be evaluated: should China conform to a Western standard expressed in values that are claimed to be universal? Kim's and Iriye's professional affiliations in the United States seem to push for a universalist prescription for China's place in the world; the peripheral relationship between Kim's and Wong's home on the one hand and China on the other hand pushes instead for a shared ontological identity. By contrast, freed from both American affiliation and a sense of belonging to the periphery leaves Tan with a different and more innocent sense of China. Given the constraining civilizational positions in which they found themselves and the empowering cultural resources at their disposal, all four scholars have to decide, discursively, professionally as well as personally, how to formulate their own identity strategy and style.