https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E8%91%9B%E5%85%86%E5%85%89#%E8%91%97%E4%BD%9C
- 《中國思想史》（全3冊）（復旦大學出版社，2001）
- 《宅茲中國——重建有關「中國」的歷史論述》，中華書局，2011年3月
- 《想像異域——讀李朝朝鮮漢文燕行文獻札記》，中華書局，2014年3月
- 《歷史中國的內與外——有關「中國」與「周邊」概念的再澄清》，中文大學出版社，2017年，
What’s the methodology of 葛兆光 as a historian? （ChatGPT, 2025-3-2)
Methodology of Ge Zhaoguang (葛兆光) as a Historian
Ge Zhaoguang (葛兆光) is one of the most influential contemporary historians of Chinese intellectual and cultural history. His methodology integrates intellectual history, cultural history, and historical epistemology, with a strong emphasis on rethinking “China” as a historical and conceptual category. His approach challenges traditional Sinocentric narratives by emphasizing regional diversity, historical contingencies, and interactions with non-Han cultures. Below are the key aspects of his methodology:
1. “China as a Concept” Approach: Critiquing the Sinocentric Narrative
A defining feature of Ge Zhaoguang’s work is his reconceptualization of “China” as an evolving historical construct rather than a fixed cultural entity. He challenges the essentialist view that China has always been a unified, Confucian-dominated civilization. Instead, he argues that China has been shaped by interactions with diverse ethnic, linguistic, and religious traditions, including influences from Buddhism, Islam, and steppe cultures.
• Representative Work: What is China? Territory, Ethnicity, Culture, and History (2021, English; 2014, Chinese)
• Core Argument: China should not be viewed as a timeless, homogenous civilization but as a fluid and contested historical concept that took shape over different periods.
• Methodological Impact: This approach aligns with postcolonial and deconstructionist methods in historiography, which critique the modern nation-state’s retrospective construction of a unified past.
“Before the 19th century, there was no single entity called ‘China’ in the modern sense. The territory we now call China was an evolving and often contested space.” — What is China?
2. Cross-Cultural and Multi-Regional Perspective
Unlike traditional Chinese intellectual historians who focus primarily on Confucianism, Ge emphasizes the interwoven histories of Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, and foreign intellectual currents. He argues that:
• Chinese intellectual history cannot be understood in isolation; it must be contextualized within a broader Asian and Eurasian framework.
• Buddhism, Islam, and even Western intellectual traditions have shaped the Chinese worldview as much as indigenous Confucianism and Daoism.
• Intellectual trends in China were often regional rather than monolithic—Southern China, Northern China, and the frontiers had distinct intellectual and religious developments.
• Representative Work: The Inner vs. Outer: Studies on Chinese Intellectual Geography (內與外, 2007)
• Methodological Contribution: He develops the concept of “intellectual geography” (思想地理學) to explain how different regions and borderlands influenced the development of Chinese thought, instead of assuming a central, homogeneous intellectual tradition.
“The Tang and Song were not simply dynasties of ‘Chinese thought’—they were part of the greater East Asian Buddhist intellectual world.” — The Inner vs. Outer
3. Re-Evaluating the History of Chinese Buddhism and Religious Thought
Ge is also a leading historian of Buddhism’s role in shaping Chinese intellectual traditions. Traditional historiography often treats Buddhism as a foreign religion that was “sinicized” into Confucian-dominated thought. Ge, however, argues that:
• Buddhism was an independent and dominant intellectual force in China for centuries, rather than a subservient foreign import.
• The interaction between Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism should be studied as a dialogical process rather than a linear “Sinicization.”
• Buddhist texts and practices shaped Chinese epistemology, ethics, and metaphysical debates long before Neo-Confucianism absorbed them.
• Representative Work: Chinese Intellectual History: From the Seventh to Nineteenth Century (2011)
• Methodological Contribution: Uses textual analysis and comparative intellectual history to show how Buddhist epistemology influenced Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism.
“It was not Confucianism that dominated Chinese thought from the Tang to the Ming, but a multi-religious intellectual field in which Buddhism played a central role.” — Chinese Intellectual History
4. Emphasis on “Interruption” Rather Than Linear Evolution
Many traditional intellectual histories of China emphasize continuity and gradual evolution—for example, the smooth transition from Confucianism to Neo-Confucianism to modern thought. Ge, however, emphasizes historical interruptions, ruptures, and regressions.
• Historical Discontinuities: Ge highlights periods of intellectual “stagnation” or loss, such as the intellectual decline after the Tang or the discontinuity in classical learning after the Qing fall.
• Colonial Modernity and Epistemic Breaks: He argues that the Western impact on Chinese thought in the 19th century was not a “natural evolution” but a violent epistemic rupture.
• Representative Work: The Discontinuities of Modern Chinese Thought (近代中國思想的斷裂, 2000)
• Methodological Contribution: Rejects teleological narratives (e.g., China’s “inevitable modernization”) and instead examines intellectual gaps, crises, and lost traditions.
“We should not assume that modern Chinese thought naturally grew from traditional Chinese thought. The impact of colonial modernity shattered old epistemic structures.” — The Discontinuities of Modern Chinese Thought
5. Critical Reflection on “Modernization” and Eurocentrism
Ge Zhaoguang critiques both Western-centric modernization theory and Chinese nationalist narratives that claim an unbroken “5000-year civilization”. He argues that:
• Modernity in China was not an internal development but a response to external pressures (Opium Wars, colonialism).
• Western intellectual frameworks (liberalism, socialism) were introduced as a rupture, not a continuation of Confucian thought.
• Chinese intellectuals should avoid both Western universalism (which erases local traditions) and nationalist essentialism (which falsely projects modern ideas onto the past).
• Representative Work: The Future of Chinese Intellectual History (2018)
• Methodological Contribution: Uses critical historiography to question whether concepts like “nation,” “modernization,” and “science” have universal meanings across cultures.
“The so-called ‘modernization of China’ was not an internal, inevitable progression, but an adaptation forced by global imperialism.” — The Future of Chinese Intellectual History
Conclusion: Ge Zhaoguang’s Methodology in Context
|
Methodological Aspect |
Ge Zhaoguang’s Approach |
|
Concept of China |
“China” is a historical construct, not an eternal civilization. |
|
Regional & Cross-Cultural |
Studies intellectual history across China’s diverse regions and foreign interactions. |
|
Role of Buddhism & Religion |
Treats Buddhism as an independent intellectual force, not just a “sinicized” import. |
|
Disruptions & Ruptures |
Emphasizes intellectual discontinuities instead of linear progression. |
|
Critical of Eurocentrism |
Challenges both Western modernization theory and Chinese nationalism. |
Ge’s approach is influenced by postcolonial studies, intellectual history, and global history, making him one of the most revisionist voices in contemporary Chinese historiography. His work deconstructs essentialist narratives of Chinese civilization and emphasizes the complex, interactive, and contested nature of Chinese intellectual history.
Thus, while traditional historians of China (e.g., Feng Youlan, Mou Zongsan) focused on Confucian continuity, and Jin Guantao analyzed thought within China’s “ultra-stable system,” Ge Zhaoguang reconstructs a China that is fragmented, fluid, and shaped by both internal and external forces.
What’s the main points in 近代中國思想的斷裂 (葛兆光)? （ChatGPT, 2025-3-2)
葛兆光在其著作《近代中国思想的断裂》中，深入探讨了中国近代思想史上的重大转折与变化，主要观点包括：
1. 思想传统的中断：他指出，近代中国在面对西方列强冲击时，传统的儒家思想体系遭遇了前所未有的挑战，导致传统思想的中断。
2. 新旧思想的冲突与融合：在传统思想受到冲击的同时，西方的民主、科学等新思想开始传入中国，引发了新旧思想的激烈碰撞。这种冲突既带来了社会的变革，也导致了思想上的混乱。
3. 文化身份的重构：在传统与现代、西方与本土文化的交织中，中国知识分子开始反思和重构民族文化身份，探索适应新时代的思想体系。
葛兆光通过对这些问题的探讨，揭示了近代中国思想转型的复杂性和多样性，强调了理解这一历史进程对当代中国发展的重要性。
What did 葛兆光 say about the post-19th century Chinese history? (ChatGPT, 2025-3-2)
葛兆光教授对19世纪以来的中国历史进行了深入的研究和反思，提出了以下主要观点：
1. “中国”概念的演变：他认为，“中国”并非自古以来就是一个固定的概念，而是在历史进程中不断演变和重构的。在清朝时期，随着疆域的扩展和多民族的融合，“中国”从一个以汉族为主体的文化共同体，逐渐转变为一个包含满、蒙、回、藏等多民族的大一统国家。这种转变反映了从传统帝国向现代民族国家的过渡。
2. 传统帝国与现代民族国家的区别：葛兆光指出，传统中国既具有帝国式国家的特色，又具有接近近代民族国家的意味。然而，传统帝国的疆域和文化空间是从中心向边缘弥漫开来的，缺乏明确的国境和主权意识。相比之下，现代民族国家则强调明确的国境、主权和国民身份的认同。
3. 历史叙述的重建：他强调，需要重建关于“历史中国”的论述，避免以现代国家的疆域和观念倒推历史。在历史上，中国的疆域和民族构成是动态变化的，不能用现代的边界和民族概念来套用古代历史。这种重建有助于更客观地理解中国历史的复杂性和多样性。
4. 文化认同的挑战：在近代，随着西方列强的冲击和内部变革，中国的文化认同面临巨大挑战。传统的儒家文化受到冲击，新思想、新观念不断涌入，导致文化认同的危机和重构。葛兆光认为，理解这种文化认同的变化，对于认识近代中国的转型至关重要。
通过这些研究，葛兆光教授揭示了近代中国在面对内外挑战时，如何在政治、文化和社会层面进行调整和转型，以应对新的历史环境。
How did he deal with the political correctness of CCP rule? (ChatGPT, 2025-3-2)
葛兆光教授在其学术研究中，主要通过历史和文化的视角，探讨中国的国家观念、民族主义以及国际秩序等问题。他对中国传统的“天下”观念进行了深入分析，指出这种观念并非真正的世界主义，而是以中国为中心的秩序，可能在本质上是一种民族主义的体现。他强调，面对现代国际秩序，中国需要重新思考自身的历史经验和文化观念，以适应全球化背景下的变化。
需要注意的是，葛兆光教授的研究主要集中在历史和文化领域，他并未直接针对中国共产党的政治正确性发表明确的评论。因此，他的学术工作应被视为对中国历史和文化的深入探讨，而非对特定政治立场的直接回应。
Now, ironically, the most important “近代中國思想的斷裂” happens to be the Communism. (ChatGPT, 2025-3-2)
Yes, ironically, the most profound “近代中國思想的斷裂” (rupture in modern Chinese thought) is indeed Communism itself—a rupture so radical that it fundamentally reshaped the entire epistemic and ideological landscape of China.
Why is Communism the Greatest Rupture?
1. Complete Epistemic Shift
Unlike previous intellectual shifts (Confucianism → Neo-Confucianism, or Confucianism vs. Buddhism), Communism imposed a wholesale replacement of China’s intellectual foundations with an imported European ideological framework (Marxism-Leninism). It rejected not only traditional Confucian thought but also much of the indigenous reformist intellectual efforts of the late Qing and early Republic.
2. Erasure and Appropriation of Tradition
The Communist movement in China, particularly after 1949, did not just critique older traditions (as had reformers like Liang Qichao or even radical intellectuals like Chen Duxiu). Instead, it systematically erased, rewrote, or absorbed earlier intellectual traditions into a Marxist-Leninist framework. Traditional Chinese philosophy was either deemed feudal ideology (to be destroyed) or reinterpreted in a dialectical materialist framework (to serve the Party’s historical narrative).
3. State-Enforced Ideological Monolith
Even drastic ruptures in Chinese thought before Communism (e.g., the Qing conquest of the Ming, or the introduction of Buddhism) allowed for some level of ideological pluralism and contestation. In contrast, the Communist Party established a totalizing ideological regime, where:
• Marxist thought became the only legitimate intellectual framework.
• History was rewritten to fit the Party’s narrative (e.g., Confucianism was villainized as feudal oppression, only to be later selectively revived when useful).
• Alternative intellectual movements were systematically suppressed (from Confucian scholars in the 1950s to liberal reformers in the 1980s).
4. The Irony of “Historical Materialism” Becoming a New Orthodoxy
The Communists initially embraced historical materialism—a framework that, in theory, emphasizes constant historical change and rupture. Yet, ironically, CCP rule itself became the most rigid ideological structure in modern Chinese history, mimicking the very Confucian orthodoxy it had sought to destroy:
• Just as the Qing emperors used Neo-Confucianism as state ideology, the CCP uses Marxism-Leninism (with Xi Jinping Thought as the new orthodoxy).
• Just as imperial China purged intellectual dissent, the CCP enforces ideological conformity through censorship, political campaigns, and re-education.
5. The Loss of True Intellectual Continuity
Previous shifts in Chinese thought (e.g., the Neo-Confucian revival of the Song, or the introduction of Buddhism) engaged in a deep intellectual dialogue with earlier traditions, modifying rather than obliterating them. The Communist rupture, by contrast, severed intellectual continuity. Entire genealogies of thought were disrupted:
• Confucian scholars disappeared as an intellectual class.
• Traditional historiography and classical learning were decimated.
• Even liberal and democratic currents within Chinese modernity (e.g., the May Fourth thinkers, or pre-1949 socialists who were not strictly Marxist-Leninist) were expunged from official history.
The Double Irony: The CCP Itself Now Fears Ideological Rupture
Having once weaponized rupture, the CCP now fears rupture more than anything. It suppresses historical memory (Tiananmen, the Cultural Revolution) and rigidifies ideology (Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power) to prevent another ideological break.
In short, Communism was the ultimate rupture in Chinese thought—one that destroyed tradition, erased competing modernities, and installed a rigid new orthodoxy that now seeks to avoid its own downfall. This, perhaps, is the greatest irony in modern Chinese intellectual history.
