回归马丁·怀特：革命主义思想传统再探究  

Return to Martin Wight:Rethinking Revolutionism

作　　者：朱剑[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学国际关系学院博士研究生,北京100872

出　　处：《世界经济与政治》2013年第10期81-95,158-159,共15页World Economics and Politics

摘　　要：革命主义思想传统素来未曾在国际关系领域内获其应有重视,这不止是因为与之相互关联的现实情状(如宗教改革、法国革命、俄国革命)非属常态,更是由于其理论内涵过于含混繁杂,从而使得大异其趣的世界主义、康德主义和斯大林主义被同时纳入革命主义范畴之中。为此,巴里·布赞等学者试图以本体论为基础来重新厘清并界定革命主义,其结果是原属其中的斯大林主义和康德主义被摒除在外,由此使得革命主义在很大程度上被等同于世界主义。而这显然不能为马丁·怀特所认同。因为在其看来,这不仅是对革命主义思想传统核心内涵的巨大偏离,而且忽视了革命主义思想传统实际上可能依然塑造着至少是某些国务家的思维。事实上,近来由新保守主义思潮与伊斯兰原教旨主义所引致的事态已然足以证明革命主义思想传统绝非仅存在于非国家行为体的行事之中。因此,唯有回归怀特对革命主义的界定,把握其核心内涵,才能明了革命主义在国政方略中绝未泯然于世,并因而能够给予其在国际关系领域中以应许地位。For all these years,revolutionism has never received due attention in IR studies.It is not only because the situation connected with revolutionism is abnormal,but also that its theoretical connotation is ambiguous and miscellaneous.Because of this,scholars such as Barry Buzan tried to clarify and redefine revolutionism on the basis of ontology.However,with the exclusion of Stalinism and Kantianism,the revised revolutionism is equated with cosmopolitanism to a great extent.Obviously,this revised revolutionism would not be approved by Martin Wight.In his opinion,the revision not only deviates a lot from the core of revolutionism,but also ignores the factthat revolutionism might still exert a great influence to some statesmen's thinking.Therefore,only if we return to Wight's definition of revolutionism and grasp its core connotation,can we be aware of the fact that revolutionism still matters in statecraft,thus granting it a rightful place in the study of international relations.

关 键 词：革命主义 世界社会 世界主义 英国学派 国际关系理论 

分 类 号：D80[政治法律—政治学]