本論文分為兩大部份。第一部份討論新思潮對歷史研究的影響，共分四小節，分別討論（一）「東方主義」、（二）殖民論述研究、（三）從屬群體與抗拒，以及（四）國族主義、後殖民主義和全球主義。近年來新的思潮強調既有分析範疇的不足與文字、「事實」以及文本的可伸展性，不再探究制度、群體與觀念間的結構性關係，改而檢驗人之互動與權力之展現所倚靠的思想與行為系統；拒絕追求對事實的「真實」描繪，轉而強調歷史文本的可變性及其文化建構的性質。另外，歷史學者的研究題目與論辯的主題也受到其它發展的影響，如冷戰的結束、國族主義與族群衝突的湧現、「全球主義」意識的興起、性別研究之廣泛引起興趣等。新思潮與世界時事的發展，明顯地影響關於西方與非西方文化之歷史關係的一般研究，以及美國的中國研究。新的學術思潮試圖發展避免歐洲中心、東方主義之假設的分析觀點，同時進一步了解世界諸人群改變中的互動模式。在此一理路下，興起一股對國族主義、後殖民主義與全球主義等議題的研究與論辯熱潮。 第二部份討論新學術思潮對英語學界之中國研究的影響，分別從五個方面來討論，即（一）典範與現況，（二）國族主義、現代化與革命，（三）社經現象與文化現象，（四）對概念援借的爭論，（五）歷史分期。中國與帝國主義的糾葛正與新思潮的關懷息息相關，引發新近的許多學術研究，包括重新評估此一領域的「研究現況」及其典範與概念；重新評價國族主義、現代化以及革命等老牌議題的概念與意義；重新思考一九四九年與一九一一年的分期問題；擴大社會文化史的研究，以包括「屬民性」、性別與性等議題；對把西方分析概念應用到中國文化脈絡中，更加注意其複雜性。

Recently new trends labeled “the interpretative turn” or “the new cultural history” have stressed the inadequacy of established categories of analysis and the malleable quality of words, “facts” and the texts constructed from them. Instead of investigating structural relationships among institutions, groups, and ideas, they examine systems of thought and action through which people interact and power is manifested. Rejecting pursuit of “true” descriptions of reality, they stress the changeable and culturally constructed nature of historical texts. 

Other developments have affected the kinds of favored research topics and subjects of debate among historians. The end of the Cold War has encouraged rejection of Marxist analysis and a reorientation toward studies of social movements and “civil society.” An upsurge in nationalism and ethnic conflicts has renewed interest in studying their origins and nature. A growing sense of “globalism” has led to reexamination of earlier notions about the characteristics of world systems and their historical production and maintenance. And expansion of interest in gender issues has led to a profusion of studies on these topics and influenced analysis of other subjects. 

This combination of world events and evolving viewpoints has significantly affected the general study of historical relations between Western and non-Western cultures, and also American studies of China. Among the results of these developments has been a rethinking of established conceptions of worldwide historical cultural interactions, greater impetus toward interdisciplinary cross-fertilization in academic research, and a stronger recognition of the changeability and interpretability of even the most seemingly “natural” and durable human institutions, cultural concepts, and forms of representation. 

In the general study of relations among Western and non-Western cultures, one fruitful area of activity has been the critique, modification, and extension of the concept of “Orientalism.” Work in this vein on topics such as colonial discourse, travel, and the dynamics of initial trans-cultural contacts stresses that Western expansion involved mutual interaction rather than simply the one-way imposition of Western control, the vulnerabilities of colonial rule and the selectivity with which Western concepts were absorbed by the colonized, and the entanglement of gender issues in all aspects of colonialism. Such studies have also prompted new work on subordinated (“subaltern”) groups within colonies, and on the forms of resistance they used. Among the aims of all of these academic trends have been to develop analytical viewpoints that avoid Eurocentric, Orientalist assumptions, while also making better sense of the changing patterns of interaction among the world’s peoples. Efforts along these lines have manifested themselves in notable upsurges of interest in studying—and arguing over—issues of nationalism, postcolonialism, and globalism. 

The nature of China’s interactions with imperialism suggests that these new trends are also relevant to it, and has prompted recent scholarly interest in reevaluating the “state of the field” and many of its paradigms and concepts. This has led to reassessments of the conception and significance of venerable topics such as nationalism, modernization, and revolution; reevaluation of the long-term salience of traditionally accepted periodization schemes such as 1949 and 1911; broadening of social and cultural history to include issues of “subalternity,” gender, and sexuality; and greater awareness of the complexities involved in applying Western analytical concepts to Chinese cultural contexts .

歷史學; 文化研究; 文化史; 東方主義; 殖民主義; 後殖民主義

historiography; cultural studies; cultural history; Orientalism; colonialism; postcolonialism