知識型的符號混成與內部殖民：重探儒家的天人合一與自我創造性轉化

本文要討論的基本問題是，儒家論述為何以及如何具有權力結構不平等分配的內部殖民治理修辭？如何在不同歷史時期，為了回應物質社會的條件以及時代的需求，而自我合理化這種權力位置？延伸的問題是，儒家知識型如何在文化交流以及文本播散的特定歷史時期，以同意於時代迫切感的話語模式，挪用外來思想，而帶來了儒家語彙詮釋空間的移動，也造成觀念的轉變？我稱呼這種透過語彙詮釋造成的觀念轉變的現象為「符號混成」（Semiotic Syncretism）。符號混成的思考角度，可以抵制本質化文化主義的認識論，而在從符號層面分析概念的變化、體制的生成、知識型的轉移等問題。不同時代儒家話語符號混成的創造性轉化與技術操作，是值得探究的問題。如何進行思想解殖，也是本文關切的問題。本文從杜維明所透過儒家企業倫理來說明天人合一以及自我創造性轉化的論點切入，來說明在面對冷戰局勢以及美國促成東亞工業化發展之時，新儒家學者如何以符應於時代需求的方式，創造性地自我調整主體位置，並且進行符號混成的合理化論述。其次，本文將從二十世紀到二十一世紀幾個具有代表性的歷史時間點與案例，進一步討論儒學的天人合一以及自我創造性轉化，指出在西方現代知識型內化之前，儒家論述符號操作的治理技術面向，如何已經展現了強化專制結構與權力集中的修辭邏輯，因此具有內部殖民性的性格。第三，我將以章太炎「以名為代」以及本維尼斯特（Benveniste）「轉換詞」的概念，討論儒家知識型內部解殖的可能性。最後，我將指出，任何思想解殖的工作，只有從揭露社會體制與文化政治經濟論述背後知識型的內部殖民性，才能夠具體開始進行。

關鍵字

新儒家；內部殖民；天人合一；創造性轉化；思想解殖

並列摘要

This essay examines the internal colonial structure in Confucian discourse and how it transforms itself at different historical points of time, changes its conceptual framework, in order to respond to the demand of the time. I call such conceptual transformation ＂semiotic syncretism.＂ Tu Weiming's discussion of ＂Tian-ren-he-yi＂ and ＂Selfhood as creative transformation＂ through Confucian Entrepreneurial Ethic demonstrates distinctly such semiotic syncretism and exemplifies how neo-Confucian scholars adapt themselves to the Cold War conditions and the industrial development in East Asia boosted by US. The recent Renaissance of Confucianism in China in the wave of the rise of Pax Sinica in the neoliberal age, in addition to the several political revivals of Confucianism to serve the reason of the state in the 20th century, also witness the logic of ＂tien-ren-he-yi＂ and ＂selfhood as creative transformation＂ explicated by Tu Weimng. I argue that the method of epistemic decolonization is not to resort to another epistemology, but to examine and expose the colonial power structure from within the present epistemology. Zhang Taiyan's concept of substitutional semiosis and Benveniste's concept of ＂shifters＂ can help us to see through the process of semiotic syncretism and bring the demand of the time into analytic perspective. I point out that the colonial power structure within Confucianism could be carried out in different social institutions and cultural discourses to suit the material needs of the time while at the same time reinforces the hierarchical structure of politico-economic social order. Only when we unveil the mask of the colonial power relation within Confucian discourse of different historical moment can we begin to think the project of epistemic decolonization.