“大分流”还是“大合流”:明清时期历史趋势的文明史观  

"Great Divergence" or "Great Mergence": a Perspective of Civilization Studies on the Historical Trend of China during the Ming-Qing Period

作　　者：赵轶峰[1] 

机构地区：[1]东北师范大学明清史研究所,吉林长春130024

出　　处：《东北师大学报（哲学社会科学版）》2005年第1期42-48,共7页Journal of Northeast Normal University(Philosophy and Social Science Edition)

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地招标项目(2001ZDXM770008)

摘　　要：美国学者彭慕兰的"大分流"说具有纯经济学的类型比较意义,但缺乏历史学上的意义,在分析16至19世纪中国历史动态趋势中显现出诸多盲点。在由西欧率先发动起来的工业化发展起来以前,中国与西欧的历史,或者社会体系,或者文明运动有接触和相互关联性但却从来也没有"合流",因而其后的"分流"是并不存在的;反倒是16世纪以后西欧的世界性扩张导致了19世纪以来欧洲与中国社会体制趋同的倾向;这种趋向使中国的社会历史运动、社会组织体系乃至文化形态与西欧具有了巨大的相似性和可融和性。在考察16至19世纪中国历史与世界历史的关系时,文明史研究的观念与方法有不可忽视的意义。American scholar Kenneth Pomeranz's 'Great Divergence' theory provided an attractive economic perspective on Chinese history. In terms of historical interpretation, however, it is narrow and problematical. Before the full development of industrialization initialed by the Western Europe, the historical trends, social systems, and civilization movement of China and those of the Western Europe had never reached a non-divided point; therefore, the so called 'great divergence' between China and Western Europe in the 19th century did not ever exist. Rather, It was the worldwide expansion of the Western Europe, which included but not limited to industrialization, forced the Chinese to change their own social systems largely based upon the pattern of Western Europe. This trend made China's historical changes, social organization system, and even cultural characteristics demonstrated greater similarity and compatibility to that of the West. In dealing with the relevance of the 16 to 19-century Chinese history with the histories of the other parts of the world, the idea of civilization studies is with undeniable usage.

关 键 词：大分流 明清时期 现代性 文明史观 

分 类 号：K0[历史地理—历史学]