6月11日，中共中央政治局常委劉云山訪問(wèn)丹麥期間，出席了“歐洲學(xué)者眼中的中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨國(guó)際研討會(huì)”并發(fā)言，主辦方是丹麥哥本哈根商學(xué)院和中國(guó)當(dāng)代世界研究中心。李世默在研討會(huì)上做了題為“從全球視角看中國(guó)研究的新動(dòng)向和中共形象的新變化”的發(fā)言。中共中央政治局常委在國(guó)外直接與海外中國(guó)學(xué)學(xué)者面對(duì)面交流，在歷史上是罕見(jiàn)的，也許這標(biāo)志著中共正自信而開(kāi)放地走向世界。

觀察者網(wǎng)全文首發(fā)，以饗讀者。

 歐洲學(xué)者眼中的中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨國(guó)際研討會(huì)（視頻截圖）

現(xiàn)代西方的中國(guó)學(xué)研究大致經(jīng)歷了兩個(gè)代際的變化。第一代是歷史主義流派主導(dǎo)的，第二代是意識(shí)形態(tài)至上流派所主導(dǎo)的。當(dāng)代西方對(duì)中國(guó)的認(rèn)知，不論是學(xué)術(shù)界或大眾媒體，都深受這兩大代際流派的影響。

我認(rèn)為，當(dāng)下，海外中國(guó)學(xué)正迎來(lái)新的一代，即第三代。第三代中國(guó)學(xué)發(fā)端于新的形勢(shì)背景下，研究方法和取向都不同以往。這一代流派的演進(jìn)，將推動(dòng)中國(guó)學(xué)從基礎(chǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)上發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)型，并使世界對(duì)中國(guó)的認(rèn)知產(chǎn)生決定性影響。這對(duì)中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨來(lái)說(shuō)意義深遠(yuǎn)，作為中國(guó)政治治理模式的核心，中共將有能力深刻影響中國(guó)學(xué)的結(jié)構(gòu)和方向，并從根本上改變中國(guó)的國(guó)際形象。

首先，我們稍微回顧下歷史。

現(xiàn)代中國(guó)學(xué)研究的第一代，可以追溯到20世紀(jì)初，以史景遷、傅高義等杰出學(xué)者為代表。他們用歷史主義的語(yǔ)境研究現(xiàn)代中國(guó)，研究方法深受中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)文化影響，研究領(lǐng)域涵蓋了中國(guó)的政治、歷史、社會(huì)狀況和引領(lǐng)中國(guó)現(xiàn)代史的領(lǐng)袖人物。這些研究，為人類(lèi)知識(shí)寶庫(kù)增加了新的瑰寶。

中國(guó)學(xué)的第二代，始于1989年，在后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代的意識(shí)形態(tài)狂熱中誕生。這一時(shí)期的研究，被歷史決定論引入歧途，陷入自由民主或?qū)Ｖ篇?dú)裁的意識(shí)形態(tài)兩元對(duì)立。在研究取向上，強(qiáng)調(diào)政治立場(chǎng)先行和意識(shí)形態(tài)掛帥，目的只有一個(gè)，即證明中國(guó)的政治制度必然崩潰。在研究方法上，則十分類(lèi)似美國(guó)競(jìng)選中常見(jiàn)的“敵情研究”。可惜，這一代流派的研究一再被中國(guó)成功發(fā)展的事實(shí)證偽，備受質(zhì)疑，如今搖搖欲墜。我預(yù)判，這一派的未來(lái)前景極其有限。

梳理完過(guò)去，讓我們?cè)賮?lái)看看當(dāng)下。

劉云山會(huì)見(jiàn)與會(huì)學(xué)者（視頻截圖）

最近幾十年來(lái)，中國(guó)全方位快速崛起，其巨大影響波及至世界各個(gè)角落。全球政治、歷史、經(jīng)濟(jì)研究的頂尖人士，紛紛聚焦中國(guó)，希望探究這一歷史重大事件的深遠(yuǎn)含義。這個(gè)群體不再象前兩代那樣限于中國(guó)通，而是來(lái)自各個(gè)領(lǐng)域，他們便構(gòu)成了第三代中國(guó)學(xué)的主體。

這第三代中國(guó)學(xué)呈現(xiàn)兩個(gè)趨向，一個(gè)是理論派，即試圖用西方現(xiàn)有的政治和國(guó)際關(guān)系理論，來(lái)分析和解讀中國(guó)模式，譬如建構(gòu)主義，“正當(dāng)抗?fàn)?rdquo;理論，“社會(huì)團(tuán)結(jié)”理論，“受眾理論”等。在我看來(lái)，這種用抽象教條硬套鮮活現(xiàn)實(shí)的研究方法很不可取，極有可能重蹈意識(shí)形態(tài)掛帥式研究的覆轍。

另一個(gè)趨向可以稱(chēng)為實(shí)證派，即以收集客觀數(shù)據(jù)為基本研究方法，客觀分析中國(guó)的治理模式。這一派中不少人是世界知名學(xué)者，比如弗蘭西斯·福山的政治學(xué)研究，尼古拉斯·拉迪的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究，以及傅泰林的國(guó)際關(guān)系研究。更值得注意的是，這一派中很多是年輕一代的學(xué)者。

在我看來(lái)，實(shí)證研究高度關(guān)注政府治理，聚焦于具體問(wèn)題，以實(shí)際數(shù)據(jù)為支撐，回應(yīng)了世界客觀認(rèn)識(shí)中國(guó)的需求，對(duì)各國(guó)的政治治理也提供了借鑒。實(shí)證研究的興起，標(biāo)志著學(xué)術(shù)界正從意識(shí)形態(tài)論戰(zhàn)轉(zhuǎn)向務(wù)實(shí)分析，發(fā)展前景非常廣闊。

新一代中國(guó)學(xué)研究吸引了當(dāng)今世界最杰出的學(xué)術(shù)精英。其原因主要有兩點(diǎn)：首先，中國(guó)崛起影響全世界，世界需要了解中國(guó)，特別是中國(guó)的治理模式。第二，當(dāng)今世界上許多國(guó)家，包括美國(guó)和歐洲各國(guó)和很多發(fā)展中國(guó)家，正遭遇史無(wú)前例的政治治理困境。全世界都在反思后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代對(duì)政治治理的共識(shí)。而中國(guó)的成就有目共睹，對(duì)中國(guó)政治治理的積極研究，有望為世界打開(kāi)新視角，找到新鑰匙。

但是，這一代中國(guó)學(xué)要想真正實(shí)現(xiàn)跨越，還面臨一道障礙亟待排除。這就是，中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨是中國(guó)政治治理的核心，迄今其角色、原理卻極少為世界所客觀認(rèn)知。

應(yīng)該說(shuō)，無(wú)論從理論上還是實(shí)踐中，中共都是中國(guó)政治當(dāng)之無(wú)愧的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)核心。但是，從中華人民共和國(guó)成立起，中共一直將自己隱藏在一個(gè)貌似和其他所有現(xiàn)代政黨國(guó)家一樣的國(guó)家體制內(nèi)，這是一個(gè)很奇特的現(xiàn)象。

其實(shí)，幾乎所有人都知道這不是事實(shí)。眾所周知，中國(guó)的政治治理模式在當(dāng)今世界上獨(dú)一無(wú)二。中共的干部選拔制度復(fù)雜有序，中共的政策決策機(jī)制和反饋機(jī)制科學(xué)嚴(yán)密。遺憾的是，全世界很難了解到這些細(xì)節(jié)。

中共正自信而開(kāi)放地走向世界

我們正站在一個(gè)新時(shí)代的起點(diǎn)。意識(shí)形態(tài)掛帥的迷霧正在散去。在“后意識(shí)形態(tài)”的時(shí)代，提高治理能力和找到有效的解決方案，是各國(guó)各類(lèi)政黨的核心任務(wù)。各國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)界都在苦尋良方，以拯救自己免于現(xiàn)實(shí)之水火。

社會(huì)科學(xué)界幾乎每一個(gè)領(lǐng)域里的新一代學(xué)者，都意識(shí)到今天中國(guó)的重要性。他們都已經(jīng)深知，不深入研究中國(guó)的案例，就無(wú)法全面理解和解讀當(dāng)代世界的政治治理。中國(guó)的發(fā)展可以說(shuō)是當(dāng)今世界在政治治理模式上最重要的嘗試和探索?，F(xiàn)在他們又逐步發(fā)現(xiàn)，要想深入研究中國(guó)治理，不深入了解中共，就無(wú)法真正搞清楚。萬(wàn)法歸宗，要揭開(kāi)中國(guó)成就之謎，鑰匙是研究中共，可謂條條道路通中共。那么，中共會(huì)走上前臺(tái)、會(huì)自己撩開(kāi)神秘面紗嗎？中共的“秘方”能改變世界對(duì)中國(guó)的認(rèn)知嗎？能促進(jìn)世界全面革新政府治理的時(shí)代理念嗎？

答案不僅是肯定的，而且是令人鼓舞的。新中國(guó)成立65年來(lái)，特別是鄧小平啟動(dòng)改革開(kāi)放36年來(lái)，中共以人類(lèi)歷史上最快的速度，帶領(lǐng)人類(lèi)歷史上最大規(guī)模的人口，實(shí)現(xiàn)了人類(lèi)歷史上最大幅度的生活水平的提高。中共的治理秘笈博大精深、獨(dú)一無(wú)二。這一秘密的揭曉，將拓寬整個(gè)世界的政治經(jīng)濟(jì)視野。

或許，今天我們正站在一個(gè)新時(shí)代的開(kāi)端。在這個(gè)新的時(shí)代里，中共將以開(kāi)放的姿態(tài)走到臺(tái)前，世界將以客觀務(wù)實(shí)的態(tài)度一窺中共這一當(dāng)代政治治理學(xué)里最重要體制之堂奧。

這個(gè)時(shí)代需要雙方相向而行。中共需要進(jìn)一步開(kāi)放，學(xué)術(shù)界需要更多嚴(yán)肅學(xué)者的投入。要做的工作很多，但并不需要太久，經(jīng)歷了前兩個(gè)代際流派之后，在第三代學(xué)者手中，我們就有望創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)全新的知識(shí)體系，貢獻(xiàn)給世界的政治治理研究。中共也有望極大地改變世界的認(rèn)知，改寫(xiě)當(dāng)代世界的中國(guó)故事。

或許，到那一刻，我們回望今日，會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，今天正是這個(gè)豐收時(shí)代的開(kāi)端。

（請(qǐng)翻頁(yè)查看英文原文）

EMERGING TRENDS IN CHINESE STUDIES AND THE ROLE OF THE PARTY

By: Eric X. Li

In the modern era, Chinese studies in the West have gone through two main generations: the generation of the historic school and the generation of the ideological school. Contemporary Western perceptions and understanding of China, in both the academic world and popular press, have been informed by the methods and aims of these two schools.

I would like to suggest that we are at the beginning of a new phase. A third generation is emerging. This new generation is approaching China with new methods and different aims within different contexts. This development has placed the fundamental frameworks of Chinese studies in transition. How this evolves will have decisive impacts on the world’s interpretations of China. As such, the contemporary CCP, the party, as China’s central governing institution, is in a position to exercise significant influence over the future landscape and conditions of Chinese studies and thereby China’s image in the eyes of the world.

First, let’s summarize the past.

The first generation, the historic school, has guided the world’s understanding of China since early 20th century. Its ranks have been filled with illustrious scholars, such as Jonathan Spence and Ezra Vogel. They seek to study modern China in an historical context and thereby better understand the nation’s trajectory. Their methods are deeply cultural. Their studies in China’s politics, historical and social conditions, and the personalities who drove China’s modern history have made significant contributions to the world’s repertoire of knowledge.

The second generation, the ideological school, on the other hand, has proved to be a deeply flawed approach. This school materialized after 1989 in the context of the post Cold War ideological fervor. Historic determinism framed their approach and the entire school was defined by the ideological dichotomy between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. The aim of their studies carried an overtly political and ideological agenda - to prove the Chinese political system is on an inevitable course towards eventual collapse. The methods of their studies are similar to what is called “opposition research” in American political campaigns. This school has been largely discredited by facts on the ground and I suspect their impact on the future will be limited at best.

That was then, and this is now.

The dramatic rise of China in all aspects of its national power in recent decades is impacting every walk of life in just about every corner of the world. As a result, some of the brightest minds in political science, history, and economics are beginning to examine closely what it all really means. Many of them are no longer China experts but generalists. They form the third new generation.

One of the two newly emerging trends in the current generation is the theoretical school. It seeks to use existing theories in political science and international relations, such as constructivism, theory of "rightful resistance", theory of "social solidarity", "audience theory", etc. to analyze and interpret various developments in China. In my personal view, the approaches taken by the theoretical school are not promising. They may fall into the same trap as the ideological school that proceeded them – applying abstract principles to highly specific and incommensurate conditions.

A much more interesting emerging trend is the empirical school. In this approach, the methods center around empirical data and the aim is the objective understanding of Chinese governance in both historic and contemporary contexts. Some of the most notable scholars have begun to undertake this approach, such as Francis Fukuyama on political science, Nicholas Lardy on economics, and Taylor Fravel on international relations. More importantly, perhaps, is that many from the current young generation of scholars are undertaking this approach.

In my view, the emerging empirical school carries the most significant promise in the future. It is the most significant sign that the academic community is shifting beyond ideological judgment and toward empirical analysis. Its heavy emphasis on governance, its focus on specific problems, and its reliance on data are all consistent with what the world needs in both its desire to better understand China and the need to address governance problems elsewhere.

This new generation of Chinese scholarship is attracting some of the best minds in the business. It is happening in the context of two underlying forces. First, the global impact of China’s rise is such that more comprehensive understanding of its governance is urgently needed. Second, a vast number of countries, including America and major European states and many developing nations are encountering unprecedented difficulties in political governance. Everywhere, the post Cold War consensus on political governance is being reassessed. The accomplishments of China, if properly studied, could provide the world with much needed fresh perspectives.

There is, however, a substantial gap that, if not addressed, would greatly limit the potential of this shift. There is too little knowledge and data about the most important institution that is at the center of it all – the party.

The party’s centrality in Chinese governance has been a fact in both principle and practice. Yet, a most peculiar phenomenon in the past decades since the founding of the People’s Republic has been the party’s insistence that it remains behind a state structure that resembles every other modern state in the world.

But everyone knows it is not so. Everyone knows the Chinese model of governance has its own unique characteristics, namely, the party matters the most. Everyone knows the party has a most extraordinarily elaborate system of selecting and promoting officials within the political system. Everyone knows the party operates a highly sophisticated process of decision-making and feedback collection on policies. Yet, so little specifics are made known to the world.

We are at the beginning of a new era. Ideology is receding into the background. In this post-ideological era, governance and problem solving are becoming the most pressing requirements everywhere in the world. It seems the world’s scholastic community is ready and eager to find practical solutions to real world problems.

This new generation of scholars of every social science is finding that China is the big elephant in the room. One cannot produce a credible and full picture of contemporary political governance without considering the Chinese case. Indeed, the Chinese phenomenon is perhaps the most significant experiment in political governance taking place in the world today. Further, one cannot unlock the secret behind the Chinese phenomenon without studying the party. The key resides with the party. All roads lead to the party. Will the party step forward and offer the world a chance to learn? What is the content that could bring about qualitative improvements in not only the understanding of China but political governance in general?

The answers to both are affirmative and encouraging. In its nearly 65 years of governing the People’s Republic, the party has led China from the most debilitated state of existence to an emerging great power. In the 35 years since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, the party has led the most significant improvements in standard of living for the largest number of people in the shortest period of time in human history. The party’s model of governance is deep and rich and unique. The opening up of the party will expand the entire world’s horizon.

Perhaps today can be the beginning of a new and rewarding period. The party will further open itself to the world. And the world will undertake to study and understand the most important institution that is at the center of the most important phenomenon in political governance of our time.

It is a two-way street. The party needs to come forward and open up. The scholastic community needs to approach the party with an open mind and empirical attitude. Much work remains to be done. But I am hopeful that, a generation from now, this process will have facilitated the building of new bodies of knowledge that would contribute to the entire world’s understanding of political governance. From its standpoint, the party will have an unprecedented opportunity to influence the narrative of modern China for generations to come.

By then, perhaps, we can look back to this day as a historic beginning.