2011/10/23

理论?别太在意!

名国际关系学者罗伯特·考克斯(Robert W. Cox)有一句名言:“理论总为某些人,为某些目的服务”。一头栽入国际关系课程11个星期后,开始对这句话有一些体会。

国际关系确实有各种各样的理论体系,从最初的自由主义和现实主义,到近期的环境主义,都可以作为探讨国际关系的理论和工具。

作为人文科学中的一门学科,国际关系其实是政治学的其中一个分支。国际关系的探讨和建立始于第一次世界大战之后,在二战后取得更大进展。如今随着全球化的脚步,更是获得西方和东方国家的重视。我也因为这样,而在考虑该朝什么方向进修时,选择了这门学科。

有人或许会问,究竟国际关系的研究范畴是什么?是不是公共关系?其实,说开了,国际关系就是研究国与国之间的互动,甚至预测国家行为的学科。

在一战之前,欧洲的国与国之战一般只造成军人的伤亡,很少涉及平民。随着武器技术的进步,平民在一战中的死亡率大大提高。战争结束后,时任美国总统威尔逊有感于一战的血腥,提出十四点和平原则,带领参战国家成立国际联盟,希望建立一个持久和平的新世界秩序。威尔逊总统秉持的国际主义过于理想化,未能解决当时的一些问题。国际联盟未能发挥应有的功能,未能避免二战的爆发。

二战之后,E.H.卡尔和摩根索等人以现实主义解释国与国之间的关系——国际社会是一个弱肉强食的社会,国际上没有任何权力更大的机构或制度,可以有效管束各个国家,所以国家为了生存,就必须尽最大的努力保障自己的利益和追求最大的权力。

自此,这两派学者展开了无穷尽的辩论,在这个基础上建立更完善、科学化的理论。长江后浪推前浪,一些不服气的新生代学者则提出新的观点和批判,尝试建立一套理论来取代前人的智慧。

而现在我们这些国际关系学生,就得阅读各门各家的观点。也因为这样,我可以体会到“理论总为某些人,为某些目的服务”的真谛。

可不是吗?威尔逊提出他的和平原则,为的是能够让美国一步登上世界舞台,推广美式民主和资本主义信条。奈何,国会和他不咬弦,让他一气之下中风倒地,美国也没有加入国际联盟,没有及早成为“世界领袖”。

我们同学之间闲聊时,认为现在的一些学者在提出观点或批判时,目的似乎更多是为了立言,以求在学术界建立名声和提高身价。有些学者在著书撰文时,总是连篇赘言,啰啰唆唆,仿佛是为了达到某个字数底限。刚开学的时候遇上这样的文章,还真的让人越读越泄气,几乎就想放弃退学了。不过,有时却又遇上一些能以简洁的文字阐述观点和理论的文章,让人如沐春风,茅塞顿开。

也是世界知名国际关系学者的邝云峰教授在某一堂课上就问我们:“知道国际关系学者和记者的最大差别是什么吗?”

他的回答是:“记者的文笔要好得多。”

2011/10/11

Why is there no Chinese IR theory?


1. Why is there no Chinese IR theory?

Because China did not have the space and opportunity to develop a full fledge and complete IR theoretical framework throughout its 5000 years of history. As compared to the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment and French Revolution that brought about waves of emancipation of thinking, flourishing of philosophies and finally led to the development of various theories and methods to describe and predict inter-European states’ behaviour; China had seen a vacuum, in terms of development of new philosophies, from Spring and Autumn and Warring States Era to contemporary China. It has been vacuum for the last 2500 years. The Confucianism and Taoism attracted much concerns nowadays are in fact ancient philosophies that are 2500 years old. China had not been able to produce new philosophies, but only refining these philosophies.

2. Why was there not space and opportunity for China to do so?

Because the ancient China had been able to unify itself more than 2000 years ago and China was hardly a fragmented nation throughout its classical history. Furthermore, the ancient philosophy of Chinese politic was about cultural imperialism and not political imperialism. The emperors view themselves as the “Sons of God” (Tian Zi, 天子), which were the rulers of the entire world/universe. In the eyes of the emperors, there were not other nation-states; “Middle Kingdom” (Zhong Tu, 中土) was the only nation-state. Since the unification of ancient China under Qin Shi Huang, the philosophies that developed in Spring and Autumn, and Warring States Era, were further developed for the emperors’ use to rule the country, not to deal with neighbouring states. Geographically, China was a rather isolated nation-state throughout its 2000 years of history. It rarely had opportunity to deal with “other” states in the world, until westerners came with vessels and knocked on its door with guns and cannons in the Qing Dynasty. China did not have the opportunity and necessity to develop its ancient philosophies, such as Taoism and Confucianism, into IR theories and methods. Many would argue that tributary system is way China dealing with its neighbouring states. I would however argue that the Chinese emperors viewed themselves as the Sons of God and China being the Middle Kingdom, the emperors did not regard the nomadic tribes that harassing ancient Chinese people as another nation-state or neighbouring state. Such Chinese view can also be applied to the Japanese, which in the eyes of Chinese were pirates (Wo Kou, 倭寇) who kept harassing Chinese coastal cities.

Towards the end of Qing Dynasty, China was so weak that the revolutionists and even the senior officials were overwhelmed by the Western advancement. The Qing government sent young Chinese to study in Europe and America. There were social movement promoting science and democracy by the revolutionists. Qing Dynasty was so weak to the extent when it was overthrown the revolutionists virtually gave up entirely the ancient Chinese philosophies that had governed China for more than 2000 years. Three Principles of the People (San-min Doctrine), which was borrowed from the West, was introduced by Sun Yat-sen. At the same time, Mao Zedong brought Marxism into China.

While opportunity arose for China to participate in the process of development of contemporary IR theories in the interwar years, China slumped into civil war between KMT and Communist Party. Mao Zedong’s Three Worlds Theory budded only in the post WWII 1940s, took shape in the 1960s and presented to the world in the 1970s. If Three Worlds Theory was the first Chinese IR theory, it was 20 or 30 years behind the West. The Cold War had in fact encouraged the further development of Western IR theories. On the other hand, China was again slumped into various political struggles from 1950s to 1970s. It again missed the opportunity of participating the process.

The social aspect of China also did not allow it to cultivate a new pool of philosophers, much less the IR theorists. Throughout the history, China had produced a lot of poets, writers, artists, and inventors, but not philosophers.

3. What could falsify my hypothesis?

There were 45 years in Song Dynasty where the Chinese had to deal with the Mongols, who established Yuan Dynasty after the end of Song Dynasty. However, the Mongols were so strong that Song officials rarely had chance to develop theories and methods to deal with the Mongols before it was eliminated.

2011/10/05

“一个马来西亚需要你的一票”,这就是拉票口号嘛!

始觉得988这个电台很亲政府,竟然公开喊“一个马来西亚需要你的一票”的口号,这不是摆明在为纳吉政府拉票吗?正因为幕后老板是马华,电台管理层更应该谨慎,更独立。你可以不再批评马华,但不应该成为政党工具。

听了这几天的“街头早点UP档案”,有一种闻鸡起舞的感觉。这几天的档案是内安法即将撤销的专题报道,访问曾经被关押的陈凯希。至今,专题给人的感觉是批判内安法。这不禁让我好奇,电台过去是不是持这样的立场?如果电台在这个课题上是没有立场的,或者立场可以随着政府的立场改变而改变,那电台宁可不要做这个专题报道,因为这只会让人觉得,这个节目在马后炮。

Some observations

Are Universities Obsolescent? | Stephen M. Walt

It is interesting to read a prominent IR professor's reflection on how ivory tower will be transformed by IT.

In fact, I experience cultural shock when I come back to NTU for my masters program after completing my basic degree more than a decade ago. Everything is highly networked and IT connected. The entire campus is covered by WiMax (I supposed this is the technology adopted in campus, and not the more common Wi-Fi). We are required to download lecture notes of first and second week lessons from Blackboard Learning, which was not even born back in 1999, the year I finished my basic degree. Everything is done through online, including matter as petty as booking of and paying for monthly season parking.

The most shocking experience is in fact digitization of all journals. During the orientation, we are taught how to use library resources. I don't remember any such specific orientation back at my engineering days. It is indeed amazing because through the online journal collections, we are able to read something published during, as far back as, interwar years.

I used to work as a librarian assistant earning some pocket money. The main working place is main library which is located at North Spine. Back then, main library was filled with books and magazines and therefore studying desks were limited. Two weeks ago, I happened to bring a Malaysian friend to tour around NTU. To our surprise, or at least to my surprise, most of the book shelves are gone. The space where used to be book shelves are now filled with computer terminals. It shouldn't be that shocking in the sense that when everything is available online, book shelve is the first thing gone. We observed a group of students having discussion in a little corner in the library. Their microsoft word was projected on the screen. The students could highlight the text on the screen with some kind of pen. They were so used to that kind of discussion and equipment. It's like throwing "this is how we study from the very beginning of our life" at my face.

Every lecture theatre is equipped with computers, audio visual equipment and centralized control of lightings, audio and etc. Back in the old days, we were simply using overhead projector. We had to write or print on transparent films that were then projected through OHP onto the screen.

I would really like to see how lectures will be carried out 10, 15 and 20 years later.

2011/10/01

求学心得之二


然自己在大学毕业后弃工从文,但一直不太理解何有关当局河政治说,升大学念工程系的学生越来越少,也不甚理解为何。

大学里的工程系不是越办越好吗?南大的工程系,专门科系分得越来越多,越来越细。我念大学的时候就只有三个最基本的工程系,外加两个隶属应用科学系的材料工程系和电脑工程系。如今,南大连宇航工程系都有了。

直到自己再回到南大校园,开始对工程系和人文科学系的差异有了自己比较切身的体会。
国际关系的一位教授常自嘲说,自然科学的理论方法最受欢迎,先后被经济学和社会科学学了去,所以自然科学家看不起经济学家,经济学家又看不起社会科学家,而社会科学里的众多分支,国际关系算是最后一个学习使用自然科学研究方法的分支,所以最被其他社会科学分支看不起。

不过,我身为一个工程系毕业生,却可以深深体会到这位教授的宽大胸襟。老实说,工作12年后重新念书,万万没有预料到那辛苦和痛苦的程度。每个星期面对那一叠叠厚厚的影音书本章节和电子期刊文章,全身都会软掉。还记得开学第一周,念这些东西念到怕了,一直在想为何花钱受罪。工程系学生不需要看那么多文章和资料,毕竟不论物理或化学,真理就是“硬道理”,工程系学生不需去质疑这些“硬道理”,只需学会,然后应用。

来到社会科学,却不是那么一回事了。首先得看那么一大叠的资料,然后得学会、吸收、融为己用,然后必须能够应用。最大的挑战还在后头,就是得培养自己的批判思维,必须设法找出这些前辈著作文章的漏洞,找出什么是前辈们没说出口的。

念了十多年书,工作了十二年,发现原来自己最不足的地方是不懂得思考。所谓的不懂得思考,不是不知道今晚要吃什么晚餐,或者对时事高谈阔论,而是不懂得挖掘别人没说出口的话,不懂得批判别人故意不告诉你的事。

前些时候找另一位教授面谈。不知怎么的,他提到硕士班要培养的不是只会从书本里找答案的人,而是要懂得思考的人。他说,我们的教育制度有缺陷,很难培养出懂得思考、批判的人,只培养出想知道去哪里找答案的人。

我是赞同的。新加坡需要创意人才,但过去几十年的教育制度只培养出一台台机械里的一颗颗螺丝螺帽,在各自所属的岗位里发挥应有的功用,并没有培养出多少个想要勇于思考、批判的人。

想到这里,发现自己当年毅然放弃工程,投身新闻工作,就是不满足于人生大半辈子都在庸庸碌碌的做一份朝九晚五的工作,而想要做一些对社会、对人文有贡献的工作。
我想,我找到答案,为什么我的许多材料工程系同学都离开了原来的工程工作岗位,投身基层、教育等其他行业;为什么有关部门总是说工程系越来越不吃香,为什么报读工程系的学生有减少的趋势⋯⋯