想像的和實際的：誰認同“亞洲”？―關於晚清至民初日本與中國的“亞洲主義”言說

The Imaginative and the Actual: Who Identifies with "Asia"? Reflections on Japanese and Chinese "Asiaist" Discourses from the Late Qing Dynasty to the Early Republican Era

葛兆光(Zhao-Guang Ge)

《臺大歷史學報》 30期 (2002/12) Pp. 183-206

https://doi.org/10.6253/ntuhistory.2002.30.08

摘要

將「亞洲」作為歷史、文化、知識有聯繫性的空間，並且從這一空間出發重新思考歷史、現實和未來，這無可非議。但是，這種關於「亞洲」的思想，歷史很長，在日本的明治時代即中國的晚清時代就有了的。本文追溯日本明治時代的「亞洲主義」言說及其發展，也追溯晚清至民初中國知識階層對「亞洲主義」的反應，指出雙方有相當大的差別，立場、心情和思路相當不同，而造成這種不同的背景，當然與雙方當時的處境有關，特別與各自的民族主義，以及各自的近代性追求有關。無論日本還是中國，十九世紀末二十世紀初的「民族主義」都表現為對於國家整體的近代性追求，即通過追求富弦來凸顯民族存在，而追求富強又只能是近代化和西方化，於是，民族立場和普遍價值就常常混雜在一起。因此，對於同一個「亞洲」，那個時代的中國和日本在認知上有相當大的差距。近年來，有的學者重新提出「亞洲價值」或「亞洲共同體」的意義，但是，我們還是需要追問，第一「亞洲」，是哪一個「亞洲」，是東亞，還是整個亞洲？第二，「亞洲」作為地理學的一個空間，如何可以成為一個文化認同空間？第三，日本所認同的「亞洲」，是否就是中國和韓國也都認同的一個政治或文化共同體？第四，「亞洲」究竟是一個需要建構的共同體，還是一個已經被認同了的共同體？換句話說，它是已然的歷史，還是希望的現實？

關鍵字

亞洲 ； 亞洲主義 ； 晚清中國 ； 明治日本 ； 認同

並列摘要

There can be no doubt that we should take ”Asia” as a historically, culturally and intellectually interrelated space from the viewpoint of which we can rethink the past, the present and the future. However, this view of ”Asia” has lasted a long time which can be traced to the Meiji period of Japan and the late Qing Dynasty of China. The present essay surveys both the Asiaist discourses in the Meiji period in Japan and the reaction of Chinese intellectuals to ”Asiaism” from the late Qing Dynasty to the early Republican Era. The author suggests that the radical differences between the two parts which exhibited themselves in their respective positions, emotions and approaches were relevant to the concrete situations Japan and China faced with at that time, especially to their specific development of nationalism and pursuit of modernity. The ”nationalism” at the turn of the 20th century became a passionate pursuit of modernity on the behalf of the whole country, both in China and Japan, namely, to ensure national survival by searching for power and wealth, which in turn just meant westernization and modernization; henceforth, the mixture of the national positions and the universal values. Therefore, the recognition of the same ”Asia” for Chinese and Japanese during that period differed from each other to a much greater extent. Presently some scholars proposed the implication of ”Asian Values” and ”The Community of Asia”, but in my opinion, we should still ask the following questions: a) What does ”Asia” mean, East Asia or Asia as a whole? b) How can ”Asia” the geographical unit become ”Asia” the unit of cultural identity? c) Is the ”Asia” with which the Japanese identified the same as the political and cultural community with which the Chinese and Koreas identified themselves? d) Finally, is ”Asia” a community which still needs to be constructed or is it already a community which had gained its identification, in other words, is it a history which has been made or is it merely a hopeful yet unfinished actuality?

並列關鍵字

Asia ； Asiaist ； late Qing Dynasty China ； Meiji period Japan ； identify

參考文獻

宋賀鑄(1920)。賀先生書牘。

清王先謙(1978)。清王葵原先生先謙自定年譜。

清李鴻章。中日議和紀略。

清翁同龢(1993)。翁同龢日記。

清薛福成(1987)。薛福成選集。