论文部分内容阅读
西方学者往往能够利用多种语文材料,通过其他视角诸如内亚边疆视角和世界史视角研究清朝就呈现出内亚草原帝国和早期现代帝国模式。其实这两种学术渊源都可追溯到欧文·拉铁摩尔、傅礼初等早期学者的理论探讨之中。这些研究视角在某种程度上补正我们在开展史学研究之时,有时形成的“中原中心论”和“汉本位”的史观局限,这些思维定势往往是中国学者耳濡目染于汉文史料的自然结果,因为那些汉文史料弥漫着一种固有的“华夷观”或“传统天下观”。不过,从另一方面而言,一些西方学者也往往缺乏对中国整个历史脉络的把握,有时甚至他们的历史分析如认为清朝不属于中国的奇谈怪论,这也是需要我们加以批判从而正本清源。
Western scholars often can use a variety of language materials, through other perspectives such as the perspective of the Ne’-border and World History perspective of the Qing Dynasty showed the Empire and the early modern Empire Empire mode. In fact, both academic sources can be traced back to Irving Lattimore, Fu Lichu and other early scholars theoretical discussion. These research perspectives, to a certain extent, ameliorate the historical limitations of “Central Plains Theory” and “Han-based” which sometimes form when we carry out the study of historical studies. These thinking trends are often influenced by the Chinese scholars’ The natural result of historical data, because those Chinese historical materials filled with an inherent “Hua Yi concept” or “traditional world outlook.” However, on the other hand, some Western scholars often lack the grasp of China’s entire historical context. Sometimes their historical analysis, such as the weird talk of thinking that the Qing Dynasty did not belong to China, is also the reason why we need to be criticized so as to clarify the original issue.