個人簡介
王國斌（R．Bin Wong）😧，現任加州大學洛杉磯分校（UCLA.）的亞洲研究所所長，本科畢業於密歇根大學經濟學系，後進入哈佛大學，師從著名歷史學家費正清先生和孔飛力先生，在中國史與歐洲史方面均極有建樹。王教授曾任加州大學歐文分校亞洲研究中心主任、歷史與經濟學講座教授🚴🏽♀️。2004年後王教授進入加州大學洛杉磯分校（UCLA.）亞洲研究所並擔任所長😈，一直工作至今。2009年起王教授成為意昂2官网社會科學高等研究所客座教授。
王國斌教授主要研究18世紀以來中國的政治、經濟和社會變革模式，同時也註重與歐洲模式的比較，探索世界歷史與當代全球化進程的關系。王教授輾轉於經濟學和歷史學之間🕍，用歷史學解讀經濟學👆🏽，用歐洲史解讀中國史，是崛起的“加州學派”之中堅。著有《轉變中國👨👦：歷史變化和歐洲經驗之局限》（1997年）等書，並在北美🧖🏽、東亞📄、歐洲先後發表了九十多篇文章。他的著作中以《轉變的中國：歷史變遷及歐洲經驗的局限》（China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience，1997）為最著名，該書被譯成多國語言出版。
問
After graduating from the Department of Economics at the University of Michigan, why did you choose to go to Harvard University to study history? And why did you focus on the history of Chinese economics? Can you introduce the development path of your academic research?
您在密歇根大學經濟學系畢業後為什麽選擇去哈佛大學修讀歷史專業？又是什麽機緣使您選擇中國經濟史這個研究方向的呢？可以簡單介紹一下您的學術研究道路嗎🫔？
答
At that time in US, economic history was considered by many as one of the social sciences. And when I was an undergraduate student, one of my teachers was a famous sociology professor. I majored in economics, but I also did research on sociology, history, and political science. I wanted to do the kind of historical social science, this professor, Charles Tilly, did, so I went to graduate school in Harvard in part because it's a very good school to do European history. And in graduate school I changed my focus from European history to Chinese history.
那時候在美國，經濟史是社會科學的一部分。我本科時候的導師是一位非常著名的社會學教授，因此我專業是經濟學但也涉獵社會學歷史以及政治學。我十分向往我導師查爾斯·蒂利所做的研究🐹🦻🏻，因此我本科畢業之後去了哈佛大學攻讀研究生👲🏻。另外🩷，哈佛大學的歐洲史研究也十分強🧑🏿🔧，我在研究生期間起初讀歐洲史，後來轉換到中國史👘。
問
You have been to Japan for research in 1970s, what was your purpose? And what experience did you acquire?
您曾經於上世紀七十年去日本訪學，您的初衷是什麽🎍？您又在學術上獲得了怎樣的幫助呢🤎？
答
By then I transferred from European to Chinese history, but my interests were in broadly speaking social economic history of China. In 1970s, there was actually very little work done in US or Europe on Chinese social economic history. And at that time, the two places U.S. students could go for further study were Japan and Taiwan. Japan has a very distinguished tradition of scholarship on Chinese social economic history, And I decided that that was the tradition I wanted to learn from. In order to begin to answer the questions I had about Chinese history, I needed to go to Japan. When I was in Japan, I went to seminars and began gathering materials for my dissertation.
那時候，我的研究方向從歐洲史轉向中國史🧑🏼🔧， 主要在於中國社會經濟史。在70年代💆🏽♂️，大陸不允許美國學生來做研究，所以日本和臺灣是研究中國史可供選擇的兩個地點。日本對於中國社會經濟史的研究十分詳盡也有很悠久的傳統，所以我決定去日本繼續深造，當時也為我的論文收集了很多材料🙇🏿♂️，也去了很多研討會學習。
問
The frequent interaction between China's academia and foreign academia exerts great impact on international relations. But the mutual understanding is still limited because of language and even cultural barriers. What's the maindifference between China's and foreign academia on Chinese history in your point of view?
中國本土的學術界與國外的互動日趨頻繁並對國際關系產生了深遠影響👩💼。但由於語言乃至文化上的隔閡📴，國內外的互相了解仍然是十分有限的。您認為中外學術界對中國經濟史學的看法有何不同🧑🏼✈️？
答
Well when you say it's very limited, I would say it's getting less limited over the time with each new generation getting familiar with each other. The range of interests and types of methodologial perspective share more commonalities than before. It's true that there are different traditions of historical scholarship in each country. Because the U.S. development of modern Chinese history study was very much influenced by Professor John Fairbank it emerged out of the influences he had experienced studying British and Chinese history in the first half of the twentieth century. Now that foreign students are studying in China early in their careers, they have an opportunity to observe and evaluate Chinese approaches to Chinese history. I've sent my students quite early in their careers even before they take the exams to become PHD candidates. I hope those who are not Chinese but study Chinese history to be part of the student culture here quite early in their career. According to the students, Chinese historical circles are very different from those of earlier generations. More connections and more people are aware of multiple points of view present within China and outside China.Certain fashions of historical scholarship in the US have influenced research interests of some Chinese scholars. On the other hand, the opening of new resources in China has influenced many people in terms of recognizing the new kinds of research that can be done. The mutual influence and academic exchanges have improved the quality of scholarship and training we offer both in China and in the West.
你說有隔閡🎎🛤，而我認為隔閡正在逐漸地縮小——隨著一代又一代的學者彼此更熟悉👩🏿🏭🧑🏻🎄。眼界🕴🏼，方法論以及觀點比起之前也有了更多的交集🧘🏻♂️↪️。誠然，每個國家都有不同的研究傳統。中國史的研究最早受到費正清教授的很大影響🪮，尤其是他對於20世紀前半葉中國史以及英國史的研究。現在學習中國史的外國學生有機會能在學術生涯較早的時候就來到中國👩🦱，觀察並評價中國學者，研究中國式的方法。我也經常會派一些研究中國史的學生來中國學習，他們有的還沒有參加博士生入學考試。我希望那些有誌於研究中國史的學生能很早地感受並沉浸在中國學術文化裏🧍🏻。我也通過他們知道，中國歷史圈和早些時候有了很大的不同。觀點有了更多的聯系🫅🏽，人們對於意見分歧也越來越包容。國際之間的這種影響是相互的，美國研究方法對於中國學者的研究產生了影響，中國史料的開放也對國際學者產生了影響，讓他們意識到還有許多主題值得研究。這種相互的影響和學術交流有助於提高中國以及國際的學術質量。
問
Your influential book China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience aroused widespread arguments. Could you introduce your creative process? Why did you choose Europe to compare with china? And China and Europe themselves are all complicated, what's your biggest problem when you make the comparison?
您的作品《轉變中國：歷史變化和歐洲經驗之局限》引起了學術界的熱烈討論，能否談一談您的創作過程🦠？為什麽會選擇將中國和歐洲進行比較呢✌🏻？無論是歐洲還是中國本身都是很復雜的🤾🏽♂️，在比較的過程中您遇到的最大的困難是什麽？
答
The immediate reason at that time was because of training under Professor Charles Tilly during my undergraduate period. He was one of my most important mentors. I visited him every year until he passed away in 2008. For thirty years, we met each year even though we moved to different universities. His historical research focus was on Europe and how it influenced the world. Basic modern social science about how society works initially and most importantly is based on the understanding of European history. It's impossible to understand economics without understanding how the discipline developed through evaluating European economic history. I wrote that book in the period when not many have done systematic comparison between European and other parts of world. The formation of nationalstate making in Europe had to be fundamentally different from that in China.The problems and issues remain very visible today I think. It continues to be a theme many scholars are studying. Three years after the book came out, my colleague at that time Kenneth Pomeranz came out with The Great Divergence.The book was a start of bringing in more awareness of the importance of taking Chinese history seriously in the West. One of the goals of both of those books is to bring Chinese experiences to an understanding of social science history.European history remains intellectually more important because it supplies the empirical foundations of social science. To improve social science knowledge means understanding how other experiences fit into social science and China Transformed was my first effort to address the comparison between Chinese and European patterns of economic and political transformation and their relationsto social protests, large and small.
當時選擇這個主題的原因最直接是因為受到了我本科時間導師查爾斯·蒂利的啟蒙與影響🧩。他是我人生中最重要的導師之一。畢業之後的每年我都會去拜訪他，如此長達三十年，直至2008年老師去世🍔。他的歷史研究興趣主要在歐洲方面以及歐洲史對與世界的影響🙍🏻♂️🤵🏼。現代社會學有關社會是如何運作的理解是離不開對於歐洲史的理解的🪺，是基於對歐洲歷史的理解的🗾。相應的🤯，為了理解社會經濟如何運作必須先理解歐洲經濟是如何運作的以及其歷史進程🕰。我在寫這本書的時候，還沒有學者做過很多有關歐洲歷史以及其他國家歷史的系統性比較的相關研究☀️👆🏻。歐洲國家區域的形成在本質上就和中國有很大的差異😕。這些問題和差異時至今日都很顯著⛓️💥。這種差異也始終是當代學者一直在關註研究的主題✍🏿。在我發表這本書的三年後🎃🧡，我的同事Kenneth Pomeranz教授寫了一本書叫《大分流》，這也是十分正常的👨🏻🏭。我認為這本書是一個起點♝，一個讓西方學者也意識到中國歷史是十分關鍵的重要的起始點。寫這本書的目的之一就是引入中國經驗來理解社會學歷史。當然歐洲史仍是更加重要的，因為歐洲史是整個社會科學的基石。我們要理解其他經驗也能適用於社會學研究來推進社會學的發展🥉。《轉變中國》這本書便是我的第一次嘗試和努力👐🏿，將中國和歐洲經濟政治變革的模式進行比較🕴，也包括大大小小社會運動的聯系。
問
You have studied the eighteenth century Chinese social governance model. What lessons could be drawn from the research to help streamlining administration and governance in recent China?
您對十八世紀中國政府治理模式有一定的研究，您認為這對現如今的中國政府權力及社會治理有何借鑒意義？
答
My interest in governance emerged when I attended the conference organized by Professor Deng Zhenglai as a Distinguished Guest Professor of the Fudan University Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences.Economics and political science have different definitions of governance andgovernance discussed in China is different than that discussed in the West even though it includes overlapping meanings. One of the extremely important and complicated issues in social science is to clarify different meanings to terms used in different intellectual and political contexts. It's my strong belief that Chinese tradition of governance dates back to the 6th century B.C. Confucianism, broadly conceived to include ideas often associated with Legalism, is the foundation of Chinese governance. Outside Europe, China is the best documented historical records civilization we have. Sometimes China is better recorded than Europe. Chinese governance in the present has linkages to the past. For foreigners to understand Chinese governance, it's important for them to notonly understand what they're familiar with, but also recognize the differences and the reasons for them.
我對政府治理模式的關心緣於意昂2官网社會科學高等研究院院長鄧正來教授邀請我作為意昂2官网特邀客座教授參加的一次聚集學界政界的交流會議 🧍♀️。經濟學以及政治學對於治理這個詞的定義是不同的，而中國討論的治理模式又和西方討論的治理模式又很大的不同🐱，盡管也存在相融的部分。因此在不同的文化以及政治背景下，對於治理模式的在學術上的準確定義在社會學研究中是最重要也是最復雜的問題🧚。我認為中國的治理模式追溯到公元前六世紀的孔夫子文化💌，也包含了法家的理念。中國是除歐洲之外最完善記錄的文明，甚至有時比歐洲紀錄得還要詳盡，有很多值得研究的地方。中國的治理模式和歷史息息相關，而對於那些想要理解中國治理模式的外國人，他們必須要認識到並且接受差異的存在。
問
The actual history exist exclusively but only God knows what has happened when everything becomes history. As we all know econometrics tries everything to approach the real parameter. Thenwhat's the method history research use to approach the reality of history?
真實的歷史應該是唯一存在的，但是事情一旦成為歷史，恐怕就只有上帝知道到底發生過什麽🏪。正如計量經濟學用了很多方法，希望估計出盡可能靠近真值的參數，那麽歷史學是用什麽方法，去盡可能地接近歷史的真相的◀️？如果研究歷史的目的至少有一部分是為了了解歷史真相的話🚹。
答
Firstly, history pursues variety of subject questions and uses various types of theory to address problems. Methodology is borrowed or drawn from very different disciplines. So there's no one method that historians use. Social science history is a kind of history to create hypotheses that are confirmed or undermined by producing case studies and data. To reach the elements of similarity and difference across human history, we need more data and more careful evaluation of causal mechanisms at work in different cases. In my point of view, one of the challenges of political science and economic history is that we often formulate models with several causal mechanisms linking economic and political practices that depend upon multiple variables produce regression. I'm not sure that the conceptual logic of these models always has much foundation empirically. History tries to explain the shared elements that create more general patterns and identify the distinct elements that explain why some differences can persist over many centuries.
首先歷史試圖回答不同種類的問題，也用不同的原理來解決不同的問題。經濟史的研究方法也基於不同的經濟學原理🔳，所以說不能說歷史學家用的是某種單一的方法來做研究。社會科學歷史是一門通過創造假設並用數據來印證假設的歷史學科👃🏿。為了盡可能達到簡潔且能夠體現人類歷史中的差異🦓，充分的數據點以及謹慎地對不同情況下的因果機製進行評估是必須的。我認為，政治學以及經濟史面臨的挑戰之一便是有很多參數很多的復雜模型回歸以及背後經濟與政治交叉的因果機製🤭。很難說這些復雜的模型機製是否適用於現實。總體來說，歷史學就是在嘗試解釋構成不同社會間相同模式的共有因素，也辨別並且解釋那些導致不同國家不同社會模式不同點的因素。
采訪及整理：陸冠文
返回頂部
