地理研究 ›› 2020, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (2): 217-231.doi: 10.11821/dlyj020190921

• 观点与争鸣 •    下一篇

洋能否为中用?西方政治地理与地缘政治发展的借鉴与反思

胡志丁1, 王丰龙2, 安宁3, 王雨4, 宋涛5, 彭飞6, 何光强7, 马腾8, 秦奇5, 熊琛然5   

  1. 1. 华东师范大学全球创新与发展研究院,上海 200062
    2. 华东师范大学中国现代城市研究中心 城市发展研究院,上海 200062
    3. 广州大学地理科学学院 华南人文地理与城市发展研究中心,广州 510006
    4. 南方科技大学社会科学中心,深圳 518055
    5. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所 中国科学院区域可持续发展分析与模拟重点实验室,北京 100101
    6. 辽宁师范大学海洋经济与可持续发展研究中心,大连 116029
    7. 华侨大学海上丝绸之路研究院,厦门 361021
    8. 杭州师范大学经济与管理学院,杭州 311121
  • 收稿日期:2019-10-20 修回日期:2019-12-16 出版日期:2020-02-20 发布日期:2020-05-20
  • 作者简介:胡志丁(1986- ),男,江西上饶人,博士,研究员,博士生导师,主要从事全球化与地缘环境研究。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(41871152);国家自然科学基金项目(41601144);国家自然科学基金项目(41701149);国家自然科学基金项目(41801132);国家社会科学基金项目(18CGJ008)

Can foreign theories be used in China? Reflections and references on the development of Western political geography and geopolitics

HU Zhiding1, WANG Fenglong2, AN Ning3, WANG Yu4, SONG Tao5, PENG Fei6, HE Guangqiang7, MA Teng8, QIN Qi5, XIONG Chenran5   

  1. 1. Institute for Global Innovation and Development, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
    2. The Center for Modern Chinese City Studies, Institute of Urban Development, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
    3. Centre for Human Geography and Urban Development, School of Geographical Sciences, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
    4. Center for Social Sciences, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, China
    5. Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China
    6. Center for Studies of Marine Economy and Sustainable Development of Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, Liaoning, China
    7. Maritime Silk Road Institute, Huaqiao University, Xiamen 361021, Fujian, China
    8. School of Economics and Management, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China
  • Received:2019-10-20 Revised:2019-12-16 Online:2020-02-20 Published:2020-05-20

摘要:

以西方为主的国外政治地理和地缘政治学说为中国政治地理和地缘政治的发展提供了很好的参照和基础。因此,如何理性对待西方的政治地理学和地缘政治学的研究、如何正确处理中国政治地理学和地缘政治学中的本土化与国际化关系是关乎中国政治地理学和地缘政治学学科方向的重要议题。然而,目前中国政治地理学和地缘政治学的发展在这一问题上存在困惑乃至两难。一方面,过度依赖西方研究框架和理论为中国政治地理学和地缘政治学的学科建设带来了一定风险;另一方面,在对西方研究保持谨慎态度的同时不能走向封闭乃至仇外的极端,破除“唯西方论”的同时不能走进“中国特殊论”的陷阱。为此,国内高校和科研院所从事政治地理和地缘政治研究的青年学者自发于2019年举办了一次“政治地理与地缘政治理论前沿”青年论坛,集中探讨了对西方政治地理与地缘政治发展的借鉴与反思,取得了初步的共识。具体而言,西方政治地理学和地缘政治学研究议题的多尺度性、研究方法的多样性、研究氛围的批判精神、研究视野的国际化和研究规范的严谨性等方面值得中国借鉴;而历史视角缺失、知识生产不平衡、地图空间表达不足、话语分析过多、解决现实问题不足等方面存在局限,中国政治地理学和地缘政治学未来发展过程中应加以避免。希望本次讨论抛砖引玉,吸引更多学者共同推动中国政治地理学和地缘政治学的学科发展。

关键词: 政治地理学, 地缘政治学, 尺度, 知识生产, 空间分析, 话语分析

Abstract:

The Western-oriented foreign political geography and geopolitics theories provide a good reference and basis for the development of Chinese political geography and geopolitics. In this sense, it is a very vital issue related to the direction-guiding for the disciplines of Chinese political geography and geopolitics, in particular in regards to how to rationally treat the studies of political geography and geopolitics in the West as well as how to correctly handle the relationship between these subjects' localization and internationalization within China. Nevertheless, the current development of China's political geography and geopolitics still has confusion and even dilemma on this issue. On the one hand, the over-reliance on the Western research frameworks and theories has brought certain risks to the discipline construction of Chinese political geography, while on the other hand, we cannot move towards the extreme of closedness or even xenophobia while being cautious about Western research, and most importantly we must break up the trap of "Chinese particularism" while breaking "Westernism". To this end, young scholars engaged in political geography and geopolitical research in domestic Chinese universities and research institutions have voluntarily organized a Youth Forum themed on "The Frontiers of Political Geography and Geopolitical Theories" in 2019, which focused on the references and reflections on the development of Western political geography and geopolitics, and reached preliminary conclusions. Most specifically, the multi-scale nature of Western political geography topics, the diversity of research methods, the critical spirit of the research atmosphere, the internationalization of research horizons, and the integrity and standardization of research paradigms are worthy of reference for Chinese political geography, and meanwhile Chinese political geographers should avoid the lack of historical perspective, imbalanced knowledge production, inadequate map space expression, excessive discourse analysis, and inadequate solutions to real problems that are identified in the forum discussions. We hope that this discussion will attract more scholars to jointly promote the development of the disciplines of Chinese political geography and geopolitics.

Key words: political geography, geopolitics, scale, knowledge production, spatial analysis, discourse analysis