后殖民理论的缺憾与汉学主义的替代理论

在跨文化研究领域，后殖民理论可以说是最具影响力的理论之一。但许多学者发现，后殖民理论虽然提供了发人深省的新颖视角，但并不完全适用于跨文化研究，特别是中西研究中出现的种种现象。正是由于这一原因，中国学界提出了“汉学主义”这一受东方主义启发但又有别于东方主义和后殖民理论的替代理论。对东方主义和后殖民理论的政治层面进行反思，可以探讨意识形态和政治批评如何影响学术的客观、中立和公正性，认识后殖民理论在跨文化研究方面的不足，也可理解汉学主义理论为何是一个可以弥补后殖民理论之不足、促进文化自觉和学术创新的可行性替代理论。

Limitations of Postcolonial Theory and the Alternative of Sinologism

Postcolonial theory is one of the most influential theories in cross-cultural studies. However, many scholars have gradually realized that although it offers a new and inspiring perspective, it is not entirely adequate to various phenomena in cross-cultural studies, especially in China-West studies. Orientalism and postcolonialism are theories centered on politics and ideology. Political criticism is both their strength and weakness, and may even be said to be its most glaring shortcoming, because political centrality may easily give rise to politicization of scholarship, turn scholarly criticism into political critique, and lead to culture wars between the right and the left, thereby hindering scholarship production and knowledge dissemination. For this reason, scholars in Chinese academia have proposed an alternative of ″Sinologism.″ Since its appearance, Sinologism has been reconceived and reconstructed by various scholars and evolved into a theoretical system, which, while drawing inspirations and insights from Orientalism and postcolonialism, differs significantly from both. It is a critical theory of self-conscious reflection, which has several main objectives. First, it does not prioritize exposing biases and prejudices against Chinese culture or rectifying distorted representations of Chinese civilization and misinterpretations of Chinese materials, but emphasizes revealing unconscious motives, attitudes, rationale and ideologies behind the surface phenomena of misreading and misrepresentations and finding the inner logic of those problems. Second, it focuses on the epistemological and methodological problems underlying Sinologistic approaches, with the aim to raise people's awareness of the cultural unconscious caused by self-colonization and other-colonization. In revealing how the cultural unconscious exerts its power in the context of globalization, we can explore the miscellaneous factors that have obstructed cultural exchanges and caused non-Western people's epistemic inertia and atrophy in original creativity. Third, it attempts to clarify a variety of scholarly issues in applying Orientalist and postcolonial theories to sinology and China studies. Last by not least, in view of the fact that existing academic paradigms are structured on Western-centric models and pseudo-scientific teleology, the theory of Sinologism hopes to initiate a viable paradigm shift in China-West studies and locate truly scientific methodologies of knowledge production. In a word, by reflecting on the political dimensions of postcolonial theory, we can explore how political and ideological criticism adversely affects the objectivity, neutrality, and fairness of scholarship, recognize the limits and limitations of postcolonial theory in cross-cultural studies, and understand why Sinologism is a viable alternative theory which may remedy the drawbacks, and promote cultural self-consciousness and academic originality and creativity.