重写文明史: 为何重写, 如何重写? ( 笔谈续)

Rewriting the History of Civilization Why and How A Seminar Continued

摘要:

本期笔谈刊载四位海外学者关于 _“ 重写文明史_” 的讨论成果, 作者分别为美国科学院院士、 哈佛大学教授大卫·达姆罗什 ( David Damrosch), 美国 《比较文学评论》主编、 宾夕法尼亚州立大学教授托马斯·比比 ( Thomas O. BeeBee), 印度海德拉巴外国语大学教授伊普希塔·茜达 ( Ipshita Chanda), 英国利兹大学教授王斌华。 多元的学术背景为相关讨论带来了全球多元视角 体现出通过 重写文明史 超越单一文明史观 在平等互鉴、 对话、 包容中弘扬全球文明蕴含的全人类共同价值的学术立场。 总体来说, 大卫·达姆罗什和托马斯·比比代表了欧美学者对于 _“ 欧洲中心主义_” 的警觉和反思。 在大卫·达姆罗什的 《论文明史的书写历史》 中, 他追溯了在 _“ 欧洲中心主义_” 之外的西方学者关于文明史书写的案例, 让我们看到在 世纪下半叶西方世界 _“ 后欧洲中心主义_” 运动的源起和现状。 关于 _“ 后欧洲中心主义_”, 达姆罗什认为 _“‘ 后_’ 的前缀表明欧洲中心主义仍然存在_”, 但在文明史书写实践中 _“ 不再是对 _‘ 西方文明本质论_’ 不加反思的展现_”。 同时, 他也提出 _“ 单数文明、 复数文明、 文化?_” 的问题, 认为即使 _“ 文明的概念被复数化, 它往往偏向持久的延续性, 通常以一些大国为中心_”, 因此认为 _“ 谈论单个和区域的 _‘ 文化_’ 可能比笼统的 _‘ 文明_’ 更好_”。 托马斯·比比的 《世界史的重写: 从世界文学史书写谈起》, 则通过对西方学者关于世界文学史写作实践的回溯和反思, 探讨文明、 历史与 _“ 世界文学_” 的深层关联。 他认为 _“ 文明_” 这一概念 _“ 既可以指文化成就的总和, 又可以指贯穿各文化领域的某种本质特征_”, 这两层意义上的文明内涵都见于 世纪的英语材料, 与 _“ 文学_” 一词的兴起相吻合, 因此通过 _“ 文学史_” 反思 _“ 文明史_” 是可行且必需的路径。 在对 19 世纪和 21 世纪的四部文学史著的评析中, 我们能够看到文明史如何影响到世界文学的内容呈现和秩序建构。 伊普希塔·茜达的 《多元伦理主义下重写文学史何以可能?》 表现出印度学者对于 _“ 重写文明史_” 的震撼和理解。 在文章的篇首, 茜达就表达了她的 _“ 震惊_”: _“ 没有一部世界史或文明史是用梵语、 巴利语或任何一种印度语写成的, 而这些语言都为印度地域政治空间中宪法认可的现代语言的形成做出了贡献_”。 这既是一种事实, 也体现出印度对于历史、 文明和世界理解的传统: _“ 世界是一个由人际关系构成的世界, 一个相互联系的人文世界, 而不是一个地理或地缘政治的范畴_”。 因此, 她开明宗义地陈述关于 _“ 重写文明史_” 的 _“ 印度观点_”: _“ 要以一种关系性的而非确定性的观点来看待我们共有的这一世界_”。 王斌华是英国利兹大学的华人教授, 这种跨国身份让他更关注文明交流和互鉴中 _“ 文化翻译_” 的重要作用。 在 《文明互鉴中文化翻译的关键作用》 中, 他回溯了鸠摩罗什、 玄奘及林语堂等翻译家的文化翻译活动对于中华文化自身繁荣和世界传播的重要作用, 并就文明互鉴之要义、 途径和践行者等问题提出了自己的见解, 认为文明互鉴和国际交流意识、 专业翻译人才的缺乏, 是中国学术 _“ 失语_” 和 _“ 失声_” 的重要原因。 四位海外学者的讨论再一次证明了 _“ 重写文明史_” 问题的重要性和复杂性: 首先, 身处 _“ 欧洲中心主义_” 漩涡的西方学者已经开始意识到建构多元文明观的重要性和迫切性, 他们关于世界文明史的最新思考和书写实践, 值得中国学界关注。 其次, 在世界多元文化背景下, 不同地区对于 _“ 世界_{” “} 文明_” 和 _“ 历史_” 的认知存在差异, 如何让多元文化资源融入 _“ 重新文明史_” 讨论和实践, 也是一个需要持续挖掘的话题。 最后, 就中国学术解决_“ 失语_” 和 _“ 失声_” 的问题来说, 无论在学术思想还是在具体措施上, 都需要有充分的思考、 实际的举措和切实的学术实践。

Abstract:

This seminar focuses on the discussion of four overseas scholars on the _“rewriting the history of civilization._” Their different backgrounds enable us to see different perspectives in this subject, showing that the rewriting of the history of civilization must go beyond a singular view of human civilization, and such rewriting must treat different civilizations equally with an inclusive attitude that encourages dialogues and mutual learning between civilizations. David Damrosch, in his _“Toward a History of Histories of Civilizations_”, traces the cases of Western scholars? non-Eurocentric writing of the history of civilizations, giving us a glimpse into the origins and current status of the _“post- Eurocentrism_” movement in the Western world since the second half of the twentieth century. _“The prefix _‘post_’, Damrosch argues, acknowledges that Eurocentrism still figures within the expanded presentation,_” but in the practice of writing the history of civilization _“this is no longer an unreflective portrayal of civilization as essentially Western._” Meanwhile, he raises the question of whether it would better to discuss civilization in singular or multiple terms, or even to replace it with a more broadly applicable term such as _‘culture_’ . He argues that even though _“the notion of civilization is pluralized, it tends to favor enduring continuity, usually centered on a few great powers_” and therefore believes that _“it may be better to speak of individual and regional _‘cultures_’rather than generalized _‘civilizations_’”. Thomas Beebee?s _“World Literary Histories as Rewritings of World Historiography_” explores the interconnection between civilization, history and _“world literature_” through a retrospective reflection on the writing of world literary history by Western scholars. He argues that _“the concept of civilization refers to either the whole of cultural achievements, or to an essential feature that runs through the various spheres._” And _“not coincidentally, the use of _‘civilization_’ in either of these senses was first recorded in English in the eighteenth century, coinciding with the rise of our current valence of the word literature ._” Thus it is feasible and necessary to reflect on _“history of civilization_” through the _“ history of literature_” . A comparison of two nineteenth-century German histories of world literature and that of two twenty-first century histories of world literature demonstrate how histories of civilization have shaped the writing of literary histories. Ipshita Chanda?s _“Can a / the History of _‘World Civilization_’ Be Re-written in a Pluralist Ethnical Frame?_” shows the shock and understanding of Indian scholars about _“rewriting the history of civilization._” At he beginning of the article, Chanda was _“struck by the fact that there is no history of the world or of civilization written in Sanskrit or Pali, or in any of the Prakrits, all of which contributed to the formation of the constitutionally recognized modern languages in the geopolitical space that is designated as India. It is a fact and it reflects the traditional Indian view of history civilization and the world The world imagined here is a world made of human relations a connected humane world not a geographical or geopolitical category. Chanda proposes in an Indian perspective that the ideas of world civilization history and the concept or practice of re-writing be conceptualized to account for the plurality of culture language and society for a relational rather than a categorically definitive view of our shared world. Wang Binhua is a Chinese professor at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, and this transnational identity enables him to be more concerned about the important role of _“cultural translation_” in the exchange and mutual learning between civilizations. In _“The Vital Role of Cultural Translation in the Mutual Learning between Civilizations,_” Wang retraces the important roles of the cultural translation activities of such translators as Kumarajiva , Monk Xuanzang and Lin Yutang in promoting Chinese culture and spreading it to the world. He puts forth his understanding of mutual learning between civilizations, and approaches to achieving this goal. In the end , he points out that a weak awareness of international communication and lack of professional translators and interpreters are the major factors that have caused the voices of the Chinese academics / researchers to be unheard on the international stage.