在歷史學與政治學之間的中國外交

Chinese Diplomacy Lost Between Historiography and Political Science

郭銘傑(Ming-Chieh Kuo)

指導教授 ： 石之瑜

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.00261

摘要

中國外交研究分別隸屬於崇拜史料的歷史學與對理論狂熱的政治學，是否中國外交研究可以超越既有學術分工，而將兩個學科領域加以整合？本論文辯稱，視中國為一個文明整體而具有特殊性的漢學，可以提供一個視中國為特例的知識框架，整合外交史與政治學的中國外交研究。

藉由對歷史學與政治學這兩個領域有關中國外交的文獻進行象徵分析，論文對所欲提出的論點進行了可否證的檢驗。正如初步的發現所示，這種漢學的知識框架，非但出現在外交史家對中國外交的敘事中，也見於政治學者對中國外交的經驗分析中。這也就是說，視中國為特例的作法，由於不受歷史學重視史料與政治學注意理論的方法論限制，足為兩個學科彼此整合的一個可能共同基礎。此一漢學的途徑因此也就揭露了一種介於歷史學與政治學之間的中國外交。

關鍵字

中國外交 ； 外交史 ； 政治學 ； 漢學 ； 知識框架 ； 可否證的檢驗

並列摘要

Is it possible to integrate two disciplines of studying Chinese diplomacy, say, Historiography with the fetish of historical materials and Political Science with the cult of parsimonious theory? Yes, it is. The thesis argues that Sinology, which has long considered China as a distinctive or even unique civilization, could offer an epistemological framework of treating China as a special case, integrating Historiography and Political Science.

A falsifiable research is designed to test the argument by symbolic analysis of literature on Chinese diplomacy or foreign policy in two fields. As the preliminary finding demonstrates, such a Sinological epistemological framework is not only appeared in diplomatic historians’ narratives of Chinese diplomacy, but also available in political scientists’ empirical analysis of Chinese foreign policy. That is to say, treating China as a special case is a possible common ground for two disciplines with different methodological concerns to integrate with each other. This Sinological approach thus uncovers the Chinese diplomacy lost between Historiography and Political Science.

並列關鍵字

Chinese diplomacy ； diplomatic history ； political science ； Sinology ； epistemological framework ； falsifiable test

參考文獻

石之瑜，1995年。《大陸問題研究》。台北：五南。

魏思齊，2007。「美國漢學研究的概況」，《漢學研究通訊》，第26卷，第2期，頁30-40。

Boardman, Robert. 1974. “Themes and Explanations in Sinology,” in Roger L. Dial ed., Advancing and Contending Approaches to the Study of Chinese Foreign Policy. Halifax, Canada: Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University. pp. 5-50.

Dittmer, Lowell. 1977. “Political Culture and Political Symbolism,” World Politics, Vol.29, No. 4, pp. 552-583.

Haber, Stephen H, David M. Kennedy, and Stephen D. Krasner. 1997. “Brothers under the Skin: Diplomatic History and International Relations,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 34-43.