Knowledge and Sociality: The Sociology-of-Knowledge Logic of the English School’s International Relations Research

I. Introduction

一、导论

In 1949, the prominent American sociologist Robert K. Merton pointed out that the main value of the sociology of knowledge lies in providing an analytical framework for clarifying the confusion in a society riven by cultural conflict, value disputes, and divergent viewpoints. Transplanting this perspective into the field of international relations is equally highly illuminating. The complex and tangled international relations, the volatile and unpredictable world situation, and the “rival claims” of different international relations theories make the field of international relations an excellent “testing ground” for the sociology of knowledge.

1949年，美国著名社会学家罗伯特·默顿（Robert K.Merton）指出，知识社会学的主要价值在于可以为一个充满文化冲突、价值纷争和观点分歧的社会，提供用以厘清这一混乱局面的分析框架。将这一观点移至国际关系领域，同样具有极强的启发意义。纷繁复杂的国际关系、波谲云诡的世界局势以及不同国际关系理论的“分庭抗礼”，使国际关系领域成为知识社会学的一个绝佳“试验场”。

However, domestic academia has not attached importance to the referential value of the sociology of knowledge for international relations research, nor has it reached a consensus on this matter. Domestically, only scholars such as Li Kaisheng, Zhao Siyang, Shi Xianze, and Huang Chen have respectively analyzed and examined the logic and evolution of the sociology of knowledge within it, from the perspectives of the institutional construction of the Chinese School (i.e., the Chinese school of international relations theory), the evolution of Chinese international relations, Anglo-American international relations, and the development of Chinese political thought.

然而，国内学术界并未重视知识社会学之于国际关系研究的借鉴价值，也尚未就此达成共识。国内仅有李开盛、赵思洋、石贤泽、黄晨等学者分别从中国学派（即中国国际关系理论学派）的体制建设、中国国际关系学的演进、英美国际关系学、中国政治思想的发展等角度，对其中知识社会学的逻辑与演变进行了分析考察。

In contrast, foreign scholars began drawing on the sociology of knowledge to conduct international relations research earlier, and their results are richer, mainly manifested in two aspects. First, the exploration of the relationship between state power, the international situation, and the discipline of international relations. This type of research attempts to expose the hidden relationship between political power and the academic development of international relations, paying particular attention to the issue of American hegemony and its academic discourse power. After Stanley Hoffmann first questioned the knowledge hegemony of American international relations, academia engaged in extensive discussion on this topic. In 2000, Steve Smith re-examined this issue. After a detailed analysis of the three major trends in international relations academia—rationalism, reflectivism, and social constructivism—he found that although British academia has also made outstanding contributions to international relations, American academia still dominates the discipline. Scholars holding the same view as Smith include Robert M.A. Crawford, Darryl S.L. Jarvis, Brian Schmidt, Helen Louise Turton, and others. Second, based on the argumentative logic and presuppositions of resisting American academic hegemony, attempts are made to construct and interpret localized, unique international relations discourse systems, emphasizing localized, indigenized international relations research that differs from the American mainstream. In recent years, this type of research has paid particular attention to the development of the English School, the French School, the Chinese School, the German School, Russian international relations, Japanese international relations, and Latin American international relations, arguing that the international relations of different countries or regions each possess uniqueness and should occupy a certain academic position and obtain corresponding academic discourse power in the global knowledge space. Although these two research trends differ in their core issues and argumentative logic, both point to the production of international relations knowledge itself.

相较之下，国外学者借鉴知识社会学从事国际关系研究起步较早，成果也更为丰富，主要表现在两个方面。其一，对国家权力、国际局势与国际关系学科的关系探讨。此类研究试图揭露政治权力与国际关系学术发展间的隐秘关系，且尤为关注美国霸权与其学术话语权的问题。在斯坦利·霍夫曼（Stanley Hoffmann）率先质询美国国际关系学的知识霸权后，学术界就此展开了广泛讨论。2000年斯蒂夫·史密斯（Steve Smith）再次对这一问题予以审视。他在详细分析国际关系学界的理性主义、反思主义与社会建构主义三大趋势后发现，虽然英国学术界也为国际关系学做出了突出贡献，但美国学术界仍主导着这门学科。与史密斯持相同观点的还包括罗伯特·克劳福德（Robert M.A.Crawford）、达里尔·贾维斯（Darryl S.L.Jarvis）、布莱恩·施密特（Brian Schmidt）、海伦·特顿（Helen Louise Turton）等学者。其二，基于反抗美国学术霸权的论证逻辑和预设前提，试图建构和阐释本土独特的国际关系话语体系，强调不同于美国主流的本土化、在地化国际关系研究。此类研究近年来尤为关注英国学派、法国学派、中国学派、德国学派、俄罗斯国际关系学、日本国际关系学、拉丁美洲国际关系学的发展，认为不同国家或地区的国际关系学均具独特性，在全球知识空间中应占有一定的学术位置并获得相应的学术话语权。虽然这两种研究趋势在核心问题与论证逻辑上并不相同，但均指向国际关系知识生产本身。

In summary, the interdisciplinary application and analysis of the sociology of knowledge in the field of international relations has begun domestically, but a specialized sociological analysis of the English School has not yet appeared. Although Li Kaisheng’s article on the construction of the Chinese School mentions the English School, it treats it more as a reference case for analysis, with relatively little exploration of the knowledge production of the English School itself. Foreign research is relatively rich, drawing heavily on the theoretical perspectives of the sociology of knowledge, but the use of social network theory to analyze schools of international relations theory, especially research related to the English School, is still uncommon. From the perspective of social network theory within the sociology of knowledge, the English School is a “social-knowledge” network structure, which centrally embodies two major characteristics of the sociology of knowledge: knowledge and sociality. Knowledge emphasizes the important role of the English School as a producer, disseminator, and reflector of international relations knowledge, placing more emphasis on the endogenous tendency of its knowledge production. Sociality refers to the various social connections of the English School, centrally manifested in the close connection between the knowledge production of the English School and many social elements such as the world situation and the academic community. The two are not logically opposed or separated from each other; in fact, they are both independent and interrelated, both internalized in the concrete practice of the English School’s international relations research.

综上，国内关于知识社会学在国际关系领域的跨学科运用与分析已经起步，但尚未出现专门针对英国学派的知识社会学分析。李开盛有关中国学派建设的文章虽提及英国学派，但更多将其作为参照案例来分析，对英国学派知识生产本身的探讨相对较少。国外研究较为丰富，对知识社会学的理论观点多有借鉴，但利用社会网络理论分析国际关系理论流派，尤其是英国学派的相关研究尚不多见。从知识社会学中的社会网络理论来看，英国学派是一种“社会—知识”网络结构，集中体现出知识社会学的两大特征——知识性和社会性。知识性强调英国学派作为国际关系知识生产者、传播者与反思者的重要角色，更多强调其知识生产的内生性倾向。社会性意指英国学派的诸种社会联结，集中表现为英国学派知识生产与世界局势、学术共同体等诸多社会要素的密切联系。二者在逻辑上并非截然对立或彼此割裂，事实上是既各自独立又相互关联，均内化于英国学派国际关系研究的具体实践中。

II. The International Situation and the Academic Agenda of the English School

二、国际局势与英国学派的学术议题

Real conflicts in the social sphere are inevitably reflected in the intellectual sphere, and the generation and application of knowledge provide an excellent entry point for presenting and understanding social change. The emergence and development of the English School are not purely the result of the operation of knowledge logic; there is a profound historical background behind them, and the social environment undoubtedly influenced its knowledge production and intellectual transformation. Specifically, the complex and turbulent historical evolution and world situation of the 20th century profoundly shaped the construction path and knowledge agenda of the English School.

社会领域的现实纷争必然反映到思想领域中，而知识的产生和应用也为呈现、理解社会变革提供了一个绝佳切口。英国学派的出现与发展并非纯粹的知识逻辑运行的结果，其背后有深刻的历史背景，社会环境无疑对其知识生产与思想变革产生了影响。具言之，20世纪复杂动荡的历史演进与世界局势深刻形塑了英国学派的建构路径与知识议题。

01

01

Changes in Britain’s International Status and the Impact of the Cold War

英国国际地位的变化与冷战的影响

The emergence and development of the English School were deeply influenced by the changes in Britain’s international status after World War II and the Cold War. The emergence of the English School is closely related to the decline of Britain’s international status after World War II. After the end of World War II, the global power structure was completely transformed. Britain, once the hegemon of Europe, found it difficult to maintain the glory of the “empire on which the sun never sets,” gradually declining from a first-rate world power to a second-rate country. At the same time, the decolonization process of the British Empire from the late 1950s to the 1970s, and the subsequent transformation of deeper involvement in the European Economic Community, caused significant changes in British thinking about the nature of international politics. Therefore, facing the objective reality of the country’s declining power and the new situation of global power transformation, British social mentality generally tended towards “calmness” and “cool observation of the world,” and the knowledge tendencies and research preferences of the international relations academia also shifted accordingly as a whole. After World War II, the British international relations academia relatively reduced discussions on themes such as hegemony and empire, instead emphasizing knowledge topics such as international society, international cooperation, international law, and peaceful development. William A. Callahan regards the English School as a knowledge response coordinating with Britain’s post-war political planning. The English School was precisely a product of its time, born under the special historical processes, social circumstances, and academic atmosphere after World War II.

英国学派的出现与发展，深受第二次世界大战后英国国际地位变化和冷战的影响。英国学派的出现与二战后英国国际地位的下降密切相关。二战结束后，世界权力格局彻底改变。作为昔日欧洲霸主的英国难以维持“日不落帝国”的辉煌荣耀，从世界一流强国逐渐沦为二流国家。同时大英帝国在20世纪50年代后期至20世纪70年代间的非殖民化进程，以及随后更深入地参与欧洲经济共同体（European Economic Community）的转变，使英国对国际政治性质的思考发生了重大变化。因此，面对本国实力日益衰落的客观现实和世界权力转换的新局势，英国的社会心态普遍趋于“心平气和”和“冷静观世”，国际关系学界的知识倾向与研究偏好也整体随之转变。二战后英国国际关系学界相对减少了对霸权、帝国等主题的讨论，转而强调国际社会、国际合作、国际法、和平发展等知识议题。柯岚安（William A.Callahan）即将英国学派视为配合英国战后政治规划的知识回应。英国学派正是在二战后特殊的历史进程、社会情境与学术氛围下催生的时代产物。

The period from 1959 to 1991 was the classical English School period in the academic history of the English School. At that time, the Cold War was in full swing, and the primary starting point for countries conducting international affairs was the defense of national interests and ideology. The mainstream American international relations theories were “in the ascendant,” mainly manifested in new changes in the two major theoretical systems of realism and liberalism. Although the English School did not focus on real-world diplomatic issues as much as mainstream American international relations scholarship, its academic agenda and the shifts in its members’ academic thinking were also potentially influenced by the Cold War. First, although the English School was not dedicated to serving real-world power, it nevertheless long focused on and reflected on the Cold War and other major international issues. For example, the series of studies on international society were initiated, expanded, and developed into the core topic of the English School precisely during this period, while issues such as international order, fairness and justice, hegemony, colonialism, and cultural identity also consistently occupied the core position of the school. Second, the intellectual turn of classical English School members was also closely related to the Cold War. Take the school’s founder, Herbert Butterfield, as an example. Initially, Butterfield was internationally renowned as a famous diplomatic historian. After 1948, he turned to the study of religion and history, and subsequently to the field of philosophy. Butterfield later admitted that his turn to philosophical research was mainly based on two crises emerging in the West at the time: first, the intense ideological challenge posed by the Soviet Union; second, the predicament in which the West, as a “frightened defender of the status quo, clinging to an ancient civilization to resist the encroachment of certain new things,” found itself. The case of Martin Wight is also highly representative. During World War II, Wight had explored issues of colonial administration and law in the British Empire and participated in a series of studies on British colonial constitutions. During the Cold War, with the rise of national independence movements, anti-colonialist waves, and the emergence of the Third World camp, his research gradually shifted to exploring the issues of “civilization” and “barbarism” in international society. This topic later expanded into the series of studies on the “standard of civilization” formally initiated by Gerrit W. Gong and still under heated debate today. Furthermore, in his book *Systems of States*, besides discussing the three major state systems—the Greco-Roman state system, the Chinese Spring and Autumn and Warring States period state system, and the modern Western state system—Wight also devoted a chapter to exploring the triangular relationship among China, the United States, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Moreover, the key terms of Wight’s most famous book, *Power Politics*, are state power and international politics, and the book even discusses numerous knowledge topics directly related to the Cold War, such as the United Nations, disarmament, arms control, and international intervention. Therefore, the turbulent Cold War structure and the complex historical processes of the second half of the 20th century profoundly influenced the research scope and topic selection of classical English School members.

1959年至1991年是英国学派学术史上的经典英国学派时期。当时冷战正酣，世界各国开展国际事务的首要出发点是维护国家利益与意识形态。美国主流国际关系理论“风头正盛”，主要表现为现实主义和自由主义两大理论体系的新变化。虽然英国学派并非如美国主流国际关系学一样高度关注现实外交问题，但其学术议程与成员学术思想的转变在无形中也受到冷战的潜在影响。其一，虽然英国学派并不致力于为现实权力服务，但仍长期关注和思考冷战与其他重大的国际议题。比如，国际社会系列研究正是在该时期开启、扩展并发展成为英国学派的核心议题，国际秩序、公平正义、霸权、殖民主义、文化认同等议题也一直占据学派的核心位置。其二，经典英国学派成员的思想转向也与冷战密切相关。以学派奠基人赫伯特·巴特菲尔德（Herbert Butterfield）为例，最初巴特菲尔德作为著名外交史学家蜚声国际，1948年后，他转向了宗教与历史研究，随后又转向哲学领域。巴特菲尔德后来坦承，他转向哲学研究主要是基于当时西方出现的两大危机：一是苏联造成的强烈的意识形态挑战；二是西方作为“惊恐万状的现状维护者，坚守着一种古老文明以抵抗某些新事物的侵害”而陷入的困境。马丁·怀特（Martin Wight）的事例也极具代表性。二战时怀特曾探讨英国殖民地的管理与法律问题，并参与了有关英国殖民宪法的系列研究。冷战期间，伴随民族独立运动、反殖民主义浪潮以及第三世界阵营的出现，其研究逐渐转为探讨国际社会中的“文明”与“野蛮”问题。该议题日后拓展为江文汉（Gerrit W.Gong）正式开启且目前仍在热议的“文明标准”系列研究。此外，怀特在《国家体系》一书中，除了对古希腊—罗马国家体系、中国春秋战国时期的国家体系以及近代西方国家体系这三大国家体系的探讨外，还专门设置一章探讨冷战中的中美苏三方关系。而怀特最为人知的《权力政治》一书的关键词即为国家权力和国际政治，书中更是探讨了联合国、裁军、军备控制以及国际干预等诸多与冷战直接相关的知识议题。因此，20世纪下半叶动荡不安的冷战格局和纷繁复杂的历史进程，深刻影响了经典英国学派成员的研究范围与选题重点。

02

02

The End of the Cold War and the Impact of the Information Age

冷战结束与信息时代的影响

The end of the Cold War indirectly provided a favorable opportunity for the rise of the English School, while the information age greatly accelerated the dissemination of English School knowledge. Changes in the international situation re-triggered internal adjustments among different knowledge positions, favoring the establishment and development of certain academic schools, knowledge groups, and their knowledge networks. In essence, this meant a reorganization of the knowledge space of international relations.

冷战结束间接为英国学派的崛起提供了适宜机遇，信息时代则极大地加速了英国学派的知识传播。国际局势变化重新触发了不同知识立场的内在调整，有利于某些学术派别、知识团体及其知识网络的建立与发展。质言之，这意味着国际关系学知识空间的重组。

In the post-Cold War era, the research focus of the international relations academic community was no longer on hegemonic maintenance and power struggle; pluralism became a new trend in historical development. This trend, accompanied by economic globalization, internet informatization, and communication intelligence, increasingly became an academic consensus. The international relations academic community began a conscious process of disciplinary introspection, theoretical reflection, and knowledge dialogue, specifically manifested in the rise of research on the history of the international relations discipline, the emergence of a European perspective on international relations, and its pursuit of its own knowledge identity and academic status. The English School, relying on its unique research style, its long-term focus on international society, and the large number of outstanding achievements produced during the Cold War, became the European theoretical school that received the most attention and had the most frequent exchanges from mainstream American international relations academia. In the post-Cold War era, globalization prompted the international academic community to increasingly recognize the importance of common interests, international institutions, international culture, and international norms. The most discussed topics in the field of international relations centered on international order, international justice, and peaceful development. This was precisely one of the knowledge advantages of the English School. Due to its long-term focus on concepts and issues such as norms, rules, institutions, identity, international culture, international ethics, and international society, the English School was well-suited to this objective demand.

后冷战时代国际关系学界的研究重心不再是霸权护持与权力斗争，多元主义成为历史发展的新趋势。这一趋势伴随经济全球化、互联网信息化以及通信智能化趋势，日益成为学界共识。国际关系学界开始了自觉的学科内省、理论反思与知识对话，具体表现为国际关系学科史研究的兴起、国际关系欧洲视角的出现及其对自身知识身份和学术地位的追求。英国学派凭借独树一帜的研究风格、对国际社会的长期关注以及冷战期间涌现出的大量优秀成果，成为美国主流国际关系学界关注最多、交流最频繁的欧洲理论流派。后冷战时代，全球化发展促使国际学术界愈发意识到共同利益、国际制度、国际文化以及国际规范的重要性，国际关系领域探讨最多的话题集中在国际秩序、国际正义、和平发展等方面。而这正是英国学派的知识优势之一，由于长期关注规范、规则、制度、身份认同、国际文化、国际伦理以及国际社会等概念和问题，英国学派很好地契合了这一客观需求。

The end of the Cold War caused profound and sustained chain reactions within the discipline of international relations. One of these was the readjustment of the knowledge space of global international relations, through which the English School regained opportunities for development. From the establishment of the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (hereinafter referred to as the British Committee) in 1959 to the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States long dominated the development direction of international relations and held absolute academic discourse power, while “the writings of British scholars, who had once been the main source of ideas, concepts, and interpretations in international relations, had declined to a position of relative unimportance.” Although the English School continuously produced outstanding achievements during this period, it was still long ignored by the American international relations academic community. It was not until the end of the Cold War that this situation began to improve. Because the academic community was generally dissatisfied with the ahistorical tone of mainstream American international relations theory, a new generation of English School scholars, such as Barry Buzan, successfully seized this opportunity. By reorganizing academic groups, redefining their self-positioning, and networking knowledge, they became one of the few strong competitors to mainstream theories in the international relations academic community, changed the marginal position of the English School, which had long been under American discursive hegemony, and successfully achieved global diffusion. Amitav Acharya also believes that in the 1990s and the subsequent period, the English School began to step out of the UK and become a more globally recognized theoretical school of international relations.

冷战的终结在国际关系学科内部造成了深远持续的连锁反应，其中之一便是重新调整全球国际关系学的知识空间，英国学派借此重获发展机遇。从1959年英国国际政治理论委员会（British Committee on the Theory of International Politics，以下简称英国委员会）成立到1991年冷战结束，美国长期主导国际关系学的发展方向，拥有绝对的学术话语权，而“过去曾是国际关系学思想、概念和阐释主要来源的英国学者的著述已经下降到相对无关紧要的地位”。尽管在此期间英国学派接连产出了优秀的成果，但仍长期被美国国际关系学界所忽视。直到冷战结束，这一状况才有所好转。由于学术界普遍对美国主流国际关系理论的非历史基调感到不满，布赞等新一代英国学派学者成功利用这一契机，通过重新组织学术团体、重新自我定位和知识网络化等方式，成为国际关系学界主流理论的少数有力竞争者之一，改变了英国学派长期处于美国话语霸权之下的边缘处境，并成功实现了全球扩散。阿米塔·阿查亚（Amitav Acharya）也认为，20世纪90年代及随后的一段时间，英国学派开始走出英国本土，成为更具全球认可度的国际关系理论流派。

Unlike the British Committee’s knowledge style, which particularly emphasized the humanist tradition, the New English School has already developed more diverse political and theoretical styles. According to different research tendencies and knowledge characteristics, the New English School can be divided into three types. First, represented by Barry Buzan, Richard Little, and Cornelia Navari, these scholars uphold a pluralist methodology, attempting to combine English School theory with structural realism, constructivism, and historical sociology, and to re-excavate two major knowledge issues: world society and regional international society. Second, scholars such as Tim Dunne, Nicholas Wheeler, and Christian Reus-Smit vigorously advocate incorporating constructivist perspectives into English School theory. They tend to believe that the theoretical core of the English School is closely related to the basic features of constructivism, and that international society itself is a kind of social construction. Third, scholars such as Robert Jackson, Andrew Hurrell, and Edward Keene reaffirm the research tradition of the classical English School, but focus on studying international society from the perspective of the history of international thought, primarily employing hermeneutic methods to explore the meaning of global order constructed by rules and institutions. Compared with the classical English School, the practice of international relations in the post-Cold War era has enabled the English School to open up a broader range of issue areas, and the rapid spread of communication technologies, including the internet, has also greatly promoted the dissemination of English School thought. The research methods and knowledge issues of the New English School have been greatly expanded. At the same time, the New English School engages in knowledge exchange and academic dialogue with the mainstream American international relations community more frequently and proactively, and also maintains good relations of interaction with scholars from the Global South, including China. Thus, the New English School has already shown a good momentum of vigorous development, radiating new academic vitality. In terms of academic status, since the end of the 20th century, the New English School has received increasing attention from the international relations academic community. The academic ranks of the English School have continuously grown, its academic influence has steadily expanded, constituting a global picture of knowledge dissemination, and revealing a symbiotic relationship between knowledge and sociality.

不同于英国委员会尤为注重人文主义传统的知识风格，新英国学派已然发展出更多元的政治和理论风格。按照不同的研究倾向与知识特征，新英国学派可分为三类。其一，以布赞、理查德·利特尔（Richard Little）和科妮莉亚·纳瓦莉（Cornelia Navari）为代表，这类学者秉持多元主义方法论，尝试将英国学派理论与结构现实主义、建构主义及历史社会学相结合，重新挖掘世界社会与区域性国际社会两大知识议题；其二，蒂姆·邓恩（Tim Dunne）、尼古拉斯·惠勒（Nicholas Wheeler）、克里斯蒂安·罗伊斯-斯密特（Christian Reus-Smit）等学者竭力主张将建构主义观点纳入英国学派理论中。他们倾向于认为英国学派的理论内核与建构主义的基本特征关系密切，国际社会本身即是一种社会建构；其三，罗伯特·杰克逊（Robert Jackson）、安德鲁·赫里尔（Andrew Hurrell）、爱德华·基恩（Edward Keene）等学者重申经典英国学派的研究传统，但侧重从国际思想史角度研究国际社会，主要采用阐释学方法探究由规则和制度建构的全球秩序的意义。与经典英国学派相比，后冷战时代的国际关系实践使英国学派得以开辟更为广泛的议题领域，包括互联网在内的通信技术的迅速普及也极大地促进了英国学派思想的传播。新英国学派的研究方法和知识议题都得到极大扩展，同时新英国学派更频繁也更主动地与美国主流国际关系学界进行知识交流和学术对话，也与包括中国在内的全球南方学者保持着良好的交往关系。由此，新英国学派已然显示出蓬勃发展的良好态势，焕发出新的学术活力。在学术地位方面，自20世纪末开始，新英国学派越来越受到国际关系学界的重视。英国学派的学术队伍不断壮大，学术影响力持续扩展，构成了一幅知识传播的全球图景，并展现出知识性与社会性的共生关系。

III. The English School as an Academic Community

三、作为学术共同体的英国学派

Knowledge sociology focuses on the subject of knowledge activity—intellectuals, whom its academic founder Karl Mannheim called “socially unattached intellectuals.” This group has a weaker class character, can maintain a unique sensitivity to social reality, and can preserve, utilize, and absorb various historical and contemporary ideological and cultural achievements. The membership composition, recruitment methods, status and prestige, and social activities of the intellectual group are precisely the key issues for further investigation in knowledge sociology. Therefore, exploring the emergence and development of the English School academic community can serve as a feasible path for understanding and interpreting its knowledge production and academic lineage. Specifically, the English School academic community benefited from multiple research organizations, foundations, and universities.

知识社会学关注知识活动的主体——知识分子，其学术奠基者卡尔·曼海姆（Karl Mannheim）称之为“无社会依附的知识分子”。这一群体阶级性较弱，能对社会现实保持独有的敏锐性，能保持、利用、吸收历史和现实的各种思想文化成果。知识分子群体的成员构成、吸纳方式、地位名望及社会活动，正是知识社会学进一步探究的关键议题。因此，探讨英国学派学术共同体的出现与发展，可以作为理解和阐释其知识生产与学术脉络的可行路径。具言之，英国学派学术共同体得益于多个研究组织、基金会和多所大学。

01

01

The British Committee

英国委员会

From the perspective of the normative construction of an academic community, the British Committee was the beginning of the institutionalization of the English School. The British Committee provided the organizational foundation for the emergence of the English School, uniting a large number of scholars to explore commonly concerned knowledge issues. Buzan and Amitav Acharya believe that the English School formed in the late 1950s, when the Rockefeller Foundation funded the British Committee to hold various academic conferences. Little goes further, equating the British Committee with the English School.

从学术共同体的规范建设角度来看，英国委员会是英国学派学术建制化的开端。英国委员会为英国学派的出现提供了组织基础，团结了一大批学者探讨共同关切的知识议题。布赞和阿查亚认为，英国学派形成于20世纪50年代后期，洛克菲勒基金会（Rockefeller Foundation）资助英国委员会举办各式学术会议之时。利特尔更进一步，将英国委员会与英国学派等而视之。

The British Committee was formally established at the University of Cambridge in 1959 and lasted for 26 years until the death of Hedley Bull in 1985. Herbert Butterfield actively facilitated the establishment of the British Committee, and Martin Wight provided the main intellectual leadership in the early days of the Committee. Subsequently, Bull and Adam Watson assumed this intellectual leadership role; the current organizational leader and issue initiator is Buzan. The starting point of the British Committee was neither to focus on the practical use of international relations theory nor to establish an all-encompassing general theoretical framework, but to explore the basic ideas behind diplomatic activities, the reasons for foreign policy formulation, and international ethical issues. This organization brought together a group of scholars from different fields but with similar interests, focusing on studying the nature, state, and history of international society and the international system. In promoting the academic output of its members, the British Committee encouraged members to conduct relatively independent yet mutually referential research, most notably its International Society Research Group based at the London School of Economics and Political Science. In terms of academic intergenerational transmission, the British Committee facilitated connections among several generations of English School scholars, while its internal discussions involved many later hotly debated topics such as international society, the international system, and international norms, opening the door to English School academic research. Therefore, it can be said that the British Committee promoted the construction of the English School academic community.

1959年英国委员会在剑桥大学正式成立，到1985年赫德利·布尔（Hedley Bull）逝世，前后存续26年之久。巴特菲尔德积极促成了英国委员会的成立，怀特在英国委员会成立之初提供了主要的智识领导（intellectual leadership）。随后担任这一智识领导角色的是布尔和亚当·沃森（Adam Watson），现在的组织领导者与议题开创者是布赞。英国委员会的出发点既非关注国际关系理论的实际用途，也非建立包揽一切的总体理论框架，而是探究外交活动背后的基本思想、外交政策制定的原因及国际伦理问题。该组织汇集了一批虽属不同领域但志趣相投的学者，着重研究国际社会与国际体系的性质、状态与历史等问题。在促进成员学术创作方面，英国委员会鼓励成员开展相对独立却互有借鉴的研究，最值得注意的是其设在伦敦政治经济学院的国际社会研究小组。在学术代际传承方面，英国委员会促进了英国学派几代学者间的联系，同时其内部讨论涉及国际社会、国际体系、国际规范等诸多日后的热议话题，开启了英国学派学术研究的大门。因此可以说，英国委员会推动了英国学派学术共同体的构建。

In the 1970s and 1980s, the English School had already exerted influence within the British international relations academic community and formed a distinct school of thought. By the 1990s, Buzan attempted to rebuild a formal academic organization similar to the British Committee for regular seminars, but it ultimately had to be terminated due to lack of funding, which nevertheless inadvertently strengthened the sense of community within the school. Today, compared to the academic society of the 1970s and 1980s, which was limited to specific members and time-space, the New English School is more like a global academic network. As scholars with different knowledge backgrounds continue to join, it exhibits theoretical continuity and academic openness.

20世纪七八十年代，英国学派在英国国际关系学界已产生影响并形成了一个独特的思想流派。到20世纪90年代，布赞曾尝试重建一个类似于英国委员会的正式学术组织，展开定期研讨，终因未获资助而无奈终止，但这无形中加强了学派内部的共同体意识。如今，相比20世纪七八十年代受限于特定成员与时空的学术社团，新英国学派更像是一个全球性的学术网络，随着不同知识背景的学者不断加入，展现出理论延续性与学术开放性。

02

02

The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation

洛克菲勒基金会和福特基金会

The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation provided financial support for the British Committee to establish its own research path and knowledge agenda, and also laid a solid foundation for the formation and development of the English School academic community. In May 1954, the Social Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation held a meeting and decided to fund outstanding scholars in the field of international relations, encouraging them to study the general theory of international politics. The subsequently established American Committee was dedicated to establishing international relations as an independent discipline, focusing on studying the fundamental issues of international relations theory and analyzing them using specific theoretical techniques to help formulate U.S. foreign policy. Its members included Kenneth Thompson, George Kennan, Arnold Wolfers, Hans Morgenthau, and others. When Thompson served as Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation, he hoped to establish a similar academic organization in Britain to jointly study international theoretical issues. In June 1956, Thompson discussed this matter in detail with Butterfield when the latter went to Columbia University to attend a meeting of the American Committee; the two met again in October of that year to finalize the specific arrangements for establishing the British Committee—the convener was Butterfield, Peterhouse College at the University of Cambridge, where he was based, was selected as the organization’s location and meeting venue, with 6-8 formal members, to jointly explore the fundamental issues of international political theory.

洛克菲勒基金会和福特基金会（Ford Foundation）为英国委员会确立自身的研究路径和知识议程提供了资金支持，也为英国学派学术共同体的形成与发展奠定了坚实基础。1954年5月，洛克菲勒基金会社会科学学部召开会议，决定资助国际关系领域的杰出学者，鼓励他们研究国际政治的一般理论。随后成立的美国委员会（American Committee）致力于将国际关系确立为一门独立学科，侧重研究国际关系理论的基本问题，并运用具体的理论技巧加以分析，以帮助制定美国外交政策，其成员包括肯尼思·汤普森（Kenneth Thompson）、乔治·凯南（George Kennan）、阿诺德·沃尔弗斯（Arnold Wolfers）、汉斯·摩根索（Hans Morgenthau）等。汤普森在担任洛克菲勒基金会副主席时，希望在英国也建立一个类似的学术组织，以共同研究国际理论问题。1956年6月，汤普森在巴特菲尔德前往哥伦比亚大学参加美国委员会会议时，与其详谈此事；该年10月两人再次会面，敲定了成立英国委员会的具体事宜——委员会召集人是巴特菲尔德，选定其所在的剑桥大学彼得豪斯学院为组织所在地和会议举办地，正式成员有6~8人，共同探索国际政治理论的根本问题。

In January 1959, the British Committee held its first meeting, marking the formal establishment of this academic organization. At the same time, the Rockefeller Foundation began providing it with an annual grant of £650. The Rockefeller Foundation extended its funding multiple times to ensure the normal operation of the British Committee; considering possible additional expenses, the Rockefeller Foundation increased its appropriations on several occasions.

1959年1月，英国委员会首次召开会议，标志着该学术组织正式成立。同时，洛克菲勒基金会开始给予其每年650英镑的资助。洛克菲勒基金会多次延长了基金资助，以保证英国委员会的正常运转；考虑到可能产生的额外费用，洛克菲勒基金会多次增加拨款。

Apart from financial support, the Rockefeller Foundation’s contribution to the British Committee also lay in its not exerting pressure on the Committee’s research projects or publications. Even when the development path and focus of the British Committee diverged from those of the American Committee, the Rockefeller Foundation still actively promoted the British Committee’s various academic activities, helping the British Committee gradually establish its own unique knowledge topics, research methods, and academic style. The American Committee, by contrast, ultimately disbanded due to “discursive, discordant discussions, ambiguous concepts, disagreements over fundamental concepts, and many in-depth reflections without conclusions.” [1]1 The American Committee refers to the U.S. counterpart of the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics, established in the 1950s with Rockefeller Foundation funding; it disbanded in the 1970s due to internal disagreements. On this, Dunn believed that the debate between theorists and practitioners within the American Committee led to its premature dissolution, whereas the British Committee, by maintaining a certain distance from policy issues, lasted longer. By creating a series of research priorities and holding regular and irregular meetings, the British Committee cultivated a sense of knowledge community.

洛克菲勒基金会对英国委员会的贡献除资金资助外，还在于其并未对英国委员会的研究项目或著述出版施加压力。当英国委员会与美国委员会的发展路径和关注重点发生偏差时，洛克菲勒基金会仍积极推动英国委员会的各项学术活动，促使英国委员会逐渐确立了自身独特的知识议题、研究方法和学术风格。而美国委员会却因“讨论散漫、不和、概念模棱两可、对根本性的概念存在分歧、许多深入思考没有结论”而最终解散。对此邓恩认为，美国委员会内部理论家和实践家之间的争论导致该委员会提前解散，而英国委员会因与政策问题保持一定距离，故而存在时间更长。英国委员会通过创设一系列研究重点、开展定期或不定期会议，培养了一种知识共同体意识。

In 1977, the Rockefeller Foundation announced the cessation of its financial support for the British Committee, which then turned to the Ford Foundation for funding. In February 1978 and January 1979, Bull twice wrote to the Ford Foundation, hoping it would fund the British Committee’s research on the evolution of the European international order. In October 1979, the Ford Foundation approved Bull’s application, agreeing to provide funding for an initial three years. The Ford Foundation ultimately granted a total of $52,200 to the British Committee. Thus, the two major foundations provided necessary financial support for the early development of the English School, ensuring the normal conduct of the British Committee’s academic activities and the smooth publication of its classic works.

1977年，洛克菲勒基金会宣布停止对英国委员会的资金资助，英国委员会转而寻求福特基金会的资助。1978年2月和1979年1月，布尔两次致信福特基金会，希望其资助英国委员会关于欧洲国际秩序演变进程的研究。1979年10月，福特基金会同意了布尔的申请，表示先提供3年的经费资助。福特基金会前后共资助英国委员会52200美元。因此，两大基金会为英国学派的早期发展提供了必要的经费支持，保证了英国委员会学术活动的正常开展和经典著述的顺利出版。

03

03

University Positions

大学阵地

Multiple universities and departments, including Peterhouse, Cambridge; the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science; the University of Oxford; and the Australian National University, also played an important organizational role in the growth and expansion of the English School, which was crucial for the mentorship relationships and intergenerational continuity of academic thought within the English School.

包括剑桥大学彼得豪斯学院、伦敦政治经济学院国际关系系、牛津大学以及澳大利亚国立大学在内的多所大学和院系，也均在英国学派发展壮大的过程中起到了重要的组织作用，这对英国学派的师承关系与学术思想的代际延续至关重要。

Peterhouse, Cambridge, best represents the early institutional environment of the English School. The first convener of the British Committee, Butterfield, was then Master of Peterhouse; it was through his initiative and organization that Peterhouse became the venue for multiple meetings of the British Committee from 1958 to 1968. The Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, as one of the birthplaces of the English School, contributed the most to talent cultivation and academic inheritance; scholars trained in this department became the mainstay of the English School. Butterfield, Wight, Bull, John Vincent, Michael Donelan, Adam Roberts, and James Mayall all taught in this department, and the contemporary convener of the English School, Buzan, also currently teaches there. At the same time, the English School’s strong mentorship relationships also mainly benefited from this department. Butterfield was one of the members of Wight’s thesis defense committee when Wight studied history at Oxford, and he long supported and helped Wight in his research. The contemporary Japanese scholar Hidemi Suganami also studied at this institution. Peter Wilson believed that in the 1950s and 1960s, the English School formed a closely knit intellectual group based at the London School of Economics and Political Science, taking the concept of international society as a key feature for understanding world politics. The London School of Economics and Political Science ensured the smooth intergenerational transmission of academic research within the English School, maintaining the consistency and coherence of its theoretical thought. Today, under Buzan’s leadership, the London School of Economics and Political Science has become one of the academic strongholds of the English School.

剑桥大学的彼得豪斯学院最能代表英国学派早期的制度环境。英国委员会的初代召集人巴特菲尔德时任彼得豪斯学院院长，正是在他的倡议与组织下，彼得豪斯学院成为英国委员会自1958年到1968年间多次会议的举办地。伦敦政治经济学院国际关系系作为英国学派的发源地之一，在人才培养与学术传承上贡献最多，该系培养的学者成为英国学派的中流砥柱。巴特菲尔德、怀特、布尔、约翰·文森特（John Vincent）、迈克尔·多尼兰（Michael Donelan）、亚当·罗伯茨（Adam Roberts）、詹姆斯·梅奥尔（James Mayall）都曾在该系任教，英国学派的当代召集人布赞目前也任教于此。同时英国学派良好的师承关系也主要得益于该系。巴特菲尔德是怀特在牛津大学研习历史时论文答辩委员会的委员之一，长期扶持和帮助怀特开展研究。当代日裔学者菅波英美（Hidemi Suganami）也曾在该校就读。彼得·威尔逊（Peter Wilson）认为，英国学派在20世纪五六十年代以伦敦政治经济学院为基础形成了关系紧密的知识分子群体，并将国际社会概念作为理解世界政治的关键特征。伦敦政治经济学院确保了英国学派学术研究代际传承的顺利进行，维持了其理论思想的一致性与连贯性。如今，伦敦政治经济学院在布赞的领导下已经成为英国学派的学术重镇之一。

The University of Oxford was also one of the knowledge centers of the English School, with long-term participation in discussions on relevant topics. Wight graduated from Hertford College, Oxford in 1935, and taught at Nuffield College, Oxford from 1941 to 1946, with his main research field being colonial constitutionalism. Donald Mackinnon, one of the first members of the English School, was a colleague of Wight’s at Oxford. Bull was also a visiting scholar at Oxford from 1975 to 1976. Ian Clark, now teaching at Brigham Young University in the United States, obtained his doctorate at Oxford, with Bull as his supervisor. Additionally, scholars such as Dunn, Suganami, and Wheeler, who taught at Aberystwyth University in Wales and the Australian National University, also maintained long-term academic ties with the English School, thereby expanding the English School’s membership scope and academic network.

牛津大学也是英国学派的知识中心之一，长期参与相关议题的讨论。怀特1935年毕业于牛津大学赫特福德学院，1941年至1946年间他在牛津大学纳菲尔德学院任教，主要研究领域为殖民地宪政。英国学派首批成员之一的唐纳德·麦金农（Donald Mackinnon）是怀特在牛津大学时的同事。布尔也曾于1975年至1976年在牛津大学做访问学者。现任职于美国杨百翰大学的江文汉，正是在牛津大学获得博士学位，其导师是布尔。此外，邓恩、菅波英美和惠勒等学者任教的威尔士阿伯里斯特维斯大学和澳大利亚国立大学也与英国学派长期保持学术联系，从而扩大了英国学派的成员范围和学术网络。

To this day, the English School has received increasing attention not only in the field of British international relations but also globally; it can be said to have pioneered a unique and systematic approach to international relations research. In terms of knowledge distribution, the English School has adapted to the global dissemination trend of knowledge systems, taking the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science as its main knowledge base and constructing a global knowledge network. This knowledge network was initially called for and organized by Buzan, with more and more scholars subsequently joining voluntarily; it differs markedly from the operational model of the British Committee as an exclusive elite club: it is neither a closed academic group with restricted membership nor an international relations theory school exclusive to a particular nation or state. Although the knowledge network of the New English School is loose, it is more open, pluralistic, and global, with members scattered across major universities, professional institutions, and intellectual circles worldwide. At the same time, members possess a strong sense of school identity and academic community consciousness; as Emanuel Adler put it, the New English School is “a heterogeneous community composed of scholars from different countries, who proudly identify with this school.”

时至今日，英国学派不仅在英国国际关系领域，而且在全球范围内受到越来越多的重视，可以说它开创了一种独特且系统的国际关系研究方法。在知识分布上，英国学派顺应知识体系的全球化传播趋势，以伦敦政治经济学院国际关系系为主要知识阵地，构建了全球知识网络。这一知识网络最初由布赞呼吁和组织，随后越来越多的学者主动加入其中，与英国委员会排他性精英俱乐部的运行模式存在明显差异：它既非限定成员身份的封闭学术团体，也非某一民族或国家专属的国际关系理论学派。新英国学派的知识网络虽然松散但更开放多元，也更具全球性，成员散布于全球各大高校、专业机构和知识界。同时成员具有强烈的学派认同感与学术共同体意识，如伊曼纽尔·阿德勒（Emanuel Adler）所言，新英国学派是“一个由来自不同国家的学者所组成的异质性共同体，他们自豪地认同这一学派”。

In terms of academic influence, the New English School conducts extensive academic discussions on various exchange platforms, and its connection with the international academic community is increasingly strengthened. The New English School currently enjoys high attention in Denmark, Germany, and Italy, and there are also specialized institutions studying the English School in Norway, Turkey, and Israel. In Canada and Australia, the English School’s position is relatively stable; academic circles in India, China, Japan, and South Korea have also developed a strong interest in the English School in recent years and have engaged in active academic dialogue with it. In terms of academic recognition, the New English School actively opens up knowledge spaces, striving to expand its academic discourse power and knowledge influence. Within major international relations academic organizations worldwide, the New English School is increasingly conspicuous. From the annual conferences of the British International Studies Association and the International Studies Association to the triennial Pan-European International Relations Conferences and Global International Studies Conferences, the New English School has discussion groups in all major international relations forums, actively engaging at the forefront of academic development and knowledge production.

就学术影响而言，新英国学派在各交流平台广泛开展学术讨论，与国际学术界的联结日益增强。新英国学派目前在丹麦、德国和意大利获得很高的关注度，在挪威、土耳其和以色列也设有专门机构研究英国学派。在加拿大和澳大利亚，英国学派的地位较为稳固；印度、中国、日本以及韩国学界近年来也对英国学派产生浓厚兴趣并与之开展积极的学术对话。就学术认可而言，新英国学派主动开辟知识空间，致力于扩大学术话语权与知识影响力。在全球各大国际关系学的学术组织中，新英国学派日益引人注目。从英国国际研究协会(British International Studies Association)和国际研究协会(International Studies Association)的年会到三年一度的全欧国际关系会议(Pan-European International Relations Conferences)和全球国际研究会议(Global International Studies Conferences)，新英国学派在各主要国际关系论坛中均设有讨论小组，广泛地活跃在学术发展与知识生产的前沿。

4. The Social Practice of the English School

四、英国学派的社会实践

As producers, disseminators, and reflectors of international relations knowledge, the English School has engaged in diverse forms of social practice. This includes not only the aforementioned interactions between funding projects, academic organizations, and the English School, but is also vividly manifested in the English School’s cross-boundary exchanges. Among the cross-boundary exchanges and academic dialogues to date, the most striking is the second great academic debate between the classical English School and the American international relations academic community in the 1950s and 1960s.

作为国际关系知识的生产者、传播者和反思者，英国学派开展了形式多样的社会实践，这既包括前述资助项目、学术组织与英国学派的互动，也鲜明地体现为英国学派的跨界交流。在迄今为止的跨界交流与学术对话中，最引人注目的是经典英国学派与美国国际关系学界在20世纪五六十年代展开的第二次学术大论战。

01

01

Points of Disagreement between the Two Sides

双方分歧

As an important manifestation of social practice, some members of the English School participated in the second great debate within the international relations academic community. This academic contention directly reflected the ideological divergences between the British and American international relations academic communities. In 1966, Bull published “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” which first raised questions about the “scientific approach” of mainstream American international relations theory. That same year, Morton A. Kaplan, a professor at the University of Chicago, published “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations” in response. This formally established the “Bull–Kaplan debate” within the international relations academic community, thereby triggering an academic controversy that lasted a decade (1955–1965).

作为社会实践的重要表现，英国学派部分成员参加了国际关系学界的第二次大论战。这场学术争鸣，直观地反映出英美国际关系学界的思想分歧。1966年，布尔发表《国际关系理论：为经典路径辩护》一文，率先对美国主流国际关系理论的“科学路径”提出疑问。同年，美国芝加哥大学教授莫顿·卡普兰（Morton A.Kaplan）发表《新的大辩论：国际关系研究中的传统主义与科学主义》一文予以回应。由此国际关系学界正式形成“布尔—卡普兰之争”，从而引发长达十年（1955—1965）的学术论战。

During this decade, the “traditionalism” led by Bull and the “scientism” represented by Kaplan engaged in multiple debates over the methodology of international relations research. Bull, who defended classical research methods, firmly believed that the truth of international politics does not arise from a single ideological paradigm but emerges from the contention among various ideological paradigms. The two sides did not debate the content of international politics; the central issue of the debate was the mode of analysis rather than the research subject, ultimately sparking a methodological revolution in the international relations academic community. The main points of disagreement between the two sides included two aspects. First, regarding primary research orientation, scientific behaviorism recognized the trend toward quantification in international relations and tended toward parametric model analysis and variable causal argumentation for related activities in international relations. Traditionalism, represented by Bull, adopted research methods such as history, philosophy, and law, paid more attention to qualitative changes in international relations, and tended to view international relations activities as a series of complex historical processes. Second, concerning specific research methods, scientific behaviorism advocated for collecting, organizing, screening, and summarizing control variables and analytical data, finally incorporating them into analytical models for examination; traditionalism, on the other hand, focused more on exploring the causes, processes, outcomes, and interrelationships of international relations activities based on chronological order, emphasizing historical classification and comparative methods.

在这十年里，以布尔为首的“传统主义”与以卡普兰为代表的“科学主义”就国际关系研究的方法论展开多次辩论。捍卫古典研究方法的布尔坚信国际政治的真相并非基于某一思想范式，而是在各种思想范式的争鸣中产生。双方没有就国际政治的内容展开争论，辩论的中心问题是分析模式而非研究主题，最终引发了国际关系学界的方法论革命。双方主要分歧包括两点。其一，在主要研究倾向上，科学行为主义认可国际关系中的计量化趋势，倾向于对国际关系的相关活动进行参数模型分析与变量因果论证。以布尔为代表的传统主义则采用历史、哲学以及法学等研究方法，更为关注国际关系中的性质变化，倾向于将国际关系活动视为一个个复杂的历史进程。其二，围绕具体研究方法，科学行为主义主张对控制变量与分析数据进行收集、整理、筛选、归纳，最后将其纳入分析模型加以考察；传统主义则更多基于历时顺序来着重探讨国际关系活动的起因、经过、结果以及相互关系，强调历史分类和比较方法。

The British Committee adhered to the classical humanist tradition and believed it necessary to resist the wave of scientism sweeping the American international relations academic community. Consequently, it launched criticisms of scientific behaviorism in three aspects: first, the quantitative and model-based research of scientific behaviorism, being mired in data analysis and variable control, found it difficult to grasp the essence of international relations; second, scientific behaviorism incorporated international relations activities into numerous analytical models for consideration, rendering it unable to elevate them into theories with absolute height and abstract significance; third, scientific behaviorism overemphasized the use of quantitative methods, leading to its inability to touch the essence of international relations.

英国委员会秉持古典人文主义传统，认为有必要抵制席卷美国国际关系学界的科学主义浪潮，由此针对科学行为主义展开三方面批判：一是科学行为主义的计量化、模型化研究由于陷入数据分析与变量控制，难以把握国际关系的本质；二是科学行为主义将国际关系活动纳入众多分析模型加以考量，致使其无法升华为具有绝对高度和抽象意义的理论；三是科学行为主义过于强调计量方法的运用，导致其难以触及国际关系的本质。

02

02

Causes and Results of the Debate

论战原因和结果

Steve Smith believed that the formation of the second debate situation included many causes: first, the different cultural backgrounds and historical developments of Britain and the United States; second, the different domestic and international political and economic problems faced by the two countries; third, the different ways the two countries trained scholars; fourth, the different organizational structures and operational models of the academic communities in the two countries; fifth, the different degrees of connection between political circles and academic circles, which was undoubtedly closer in the United States; sixth, the different environments for information acquisition in the academic communities of the two countries—the United States had the Freedom of Information Act, while Britain did not. In fact, from the very birth of British and American international relations studies, there existed differentiated cognitive preferences and clear theoretical divergences between the two sides. John M. Hobson and George Lawson vividly termed this the “transatlantic divide,” which separated British international relations studies, rooted in history, from mainstream American international relations studies, which were less historically oriented.

斯蒂夫·史密斯认为，第二次论战局面的形成包括诸多原因：一是英美两国的文化背景和历史发展不同；二是两国面临的国内外政治经济问题不同；三是两国培养学者的方式不同；四是两国学术界的组织结构和运行模式不同；五是政界与学界的联系情况不同，美国无疑更为密切；六是两国学术界获取信息的环境不同，美国有《信息自由法案》，英国则没有。事实上，英美国际关系学各自诞生之初，双方就存在差异化的认知偏好与明显的理论分野。霍布森（John M.Hobson）和劳森（George Lawson）形象地称之为“跨大西洋分野”，这一分野将以历史为根基的英国国际关系学与较少历史导向的美国主流国际关系学区隔开来。

In terms of research orientation, the theoretical orientation of mainstream American international relations studies after World War II was rationalism, while European international relations studies as a whole, including Britain, increasingly tended toward social constructivism and postmodernism; regarding ontology, the United States emphasized materiality, while Britain leaned toward ideas; from an epistemological perspective, the United States emphasized scientific realism, while Britain leaned toward rational speculation; in terms of methodology, the United States emphasized scientific research methods, while Britain leaned toward historical philosophy and pluralistic methodologies. Specifically: first, Britain emphasized traditional analysis, while the United States emphasized comparative analysis; second, Britain emphasized normative methods, while the United States emphasized empirical methods; third, Britain valued historical analysis, while the United States valued scientific analysis; fourth, Britain valued particularity in international relations, while the United States valued universality and general laws; fifth, Britain recognized instinct, intuition, and imagination as greater than premises, inferences, and hypotheses, while the United States emphasized that logical presuppositions, causal inferences, and scientific models outweigh subjective intuition, imagination, and cognition; sixth, Britain focused on behavioral motives in international relations, while the United States did not attach great importance to this; seventh, Britain placed greater emphasis on the role of individuals, great figures, and elite groups; eighth, Britain did not deliberately emphasize the influence of social science methodology on international relations, while the United States attached great importance to this; ninth, the relationship between government decision-making departments and academic institutions in Britain was not as close as in the United States; tenth, the British academic community regarded international relations and foreign policy as an art, while the American academic community regarded them as a science.

在研究取向上，二战后美国主流国际关系学的理论取向是理性主义，而包括英国在内的欧洲国际关系学整体上则日渐趋向社会建构主义和后现代主义；就本体论而言，美国强调物质，英国偏重理念；从认识论角度来看，美国强调科学实在论，英国偏重理性思辨；在方法论方面，美国强调科学研究方法，英国偏重历史哲学和多元方法论。具言之，一是英国强调传统分析，美国强调比较分析；二是英国强调规范方法，美国强调实证方法；三是英国注重历史分析，美国注重科学分析；四是英国看重国际关系中的特殊性，美国注重普遍性和一般规律；五是英国认可本能、直觉和想象大于前提、推断和假设，美国强调逻辑预设、因果推断与科学模型重于主观直觉、想象与认知；六是英国关注国际关系中的行为动机，美国对此不甚重视；七是英国更为重视个人、伟人和精英集团的作用；八是英国并不刻意强调社会科学方法论对国际关系的影响，美国则对此极为重视；九是英国的政府决策部门与学术机构间的关系不如美国密切；十是英国学术界视国际关系和外交政策为艺术，美国学术界则视之为科学。

Therefore, unlike the scientific, empirical, and quantitative tendencies of the American international relations academic community, international relations studies in Britain were never regarded as a part of political science but rather as a comprehensive field requiring the integration of multidisciplinary knowledge. The American-style scientific research path never had many followers in Britain, and international relations studies were able to maintain long-term close ties with political science, history, international law, and sociology. In Bull’s view, the sources of the classical method of British international relations studies were history, philosophy, and law; its primary characteristic was the explicit reliance on human judgment, and its general propositions derived from the process of perception or sensation.

因此，不同于美国国际关系学界的科学化、实证化与计量化倾向，国际关系学在英国从未被视为政治学的一部分，而是需要融汇多学科知识的综合领域。美国式的科学研究路径从未在英国出现过众多追随者，国际关系学得以长期保持与政治学、历史学、国际法以及社会学的紧密联系。在布尔看来，英国国际关系学经典方法的来源是历史、哲学和法律，其首要特点是明确依靠人的判断力，其一般命题源自感知或知觉过程。

After the debate between Bull and Kaplan, controversy over international relations methodology persisted. In summarizing the characteristics of the English School, Dunne particularly emphasized the methodological differences between the British and American sides. He pointed out that the English School has three major characteristics. First, a unique tradition of studying international politics from a historical-sociological perspective, especially emphasizing the legal and diplomatic experience of European international society; second, an overall adoption of interpretive methods rather than the empirical methods of mainstream American theory; third, viewing international political theory as normative theory, particularly emphasizing the key role of ethics within it. In Buzan’s view, the scientific method emphasizes the transhistorical characteristics, value neutrality, and empirical verifiability of theory, while the English School places greater emphasis on the speculative, historical, and corresponding ethical values of theory. Daniel Green also believed that one major advantage of the English School was its broad and profound understanding of the history of international relations, thereby clearly distinguishing it from other international relations research methods. Martha Finnemore, on the other hand, sharply criticized the English School for lacking clear theory and research methods, making it unable to propose clear causal hypotheses regarding international relations. To this day, although academic debates over international relations methodology occur from time to time, they have generally entered a calm period. Although the English School and the American international relations academic community do not fully agree with each other’s methodologies, they also acknowledge the value of each other’s existence.

在布尔和卡普兰的论辩之后，国际关系方法论问题仍存争议。邓恩在总结英国学派的特点时尤为强调英美双方的方法论差异。他指出，英国学派具有三大特点。其一，基于历史社会的视角研究国际政治的独特传统，尤其强调欧洲国际社会在法律外交方面的经验；其二，总体采用诠释方法而非美国主流理论的实证方法；其三，视国际政治理论为规范性理论，尤其注重伦理在其中的关键作用。在布赞看来，科学方法强调的是理论的超历史特征、价值中立性和经验实证性，而英国学派更为强调理论的思辨性、历史性以及相应的伦理价值。丹尼尔·格林（Daniel Green）也认为英国学派的一大优势就是对国际关系史有着广泛而深刻的理解，从而使其明显区别于其他国际关系研究方法。芬尼莫尔（Martha Finnemore）则严厉批评英国学派缺乏清晰的理论和研究方法，无法就国际关系提出明确的因果假设。时至今日，围绕国际关系方法论的学术争论虽时有发生，但总体而言进入了平静期。英国学派与美国国际关系学界尽管并不完全认同彼此的方法论，但也承认各自存在的价值。

The social practice of the English School’s participation in the second great debate within the international relations academic community reflects the enormous methodological differences between Britain and the United States. This transatlantic intellectual confrontation and social interaction placed both sides in the same knowledge space to discuss a specific issue, thereby effectively linking the English School and the American international relations academic community and triggering a methodological revolution in the field of international relations.

英国学派参加国际关系学界第二次大论战的社会实践反映出英美方法论上的巨大差异。这场横跨大西洋的知识交锋与社会互动，将双方置于同一知识空间以探讨某一具体问题，从而有效联结起英国学派和美国国际关系学界，引发国际关系领域的方法论革命。

V. Expansion and Shift of International Society Issues

五、国际社会议题的扩展与转向

The English School possesses an internally coherent intellectual tradition and has formed a distinctive theoretical system, the core and most well-known element of which is the issue of international society. Taking international society as its core, the English School has constructed a narrative framework for understanding and interpreting world history and international relations. This narrative framework comprises two major components: the study of the expansion of international society and the study of the turn of international society.

英国学派具有内在连贯的知识传统并形成了独特的理论体系，这一理论体系中最核心也最为人知的是国际社会议题。英国学派以国际社会为核心，构建了理解和阐释世界历史与国际关系的叙事框架。这一叙事框架包括两大内容：国际社会的扩展研究和国际社会的转向研究。

01

01

The Study of the Expansion of International Society

国际社会的扩展研究

The study of the expansion of international society primarily refers to the issue of European international society itself. The English School has proposed three major concepts—international system, international society, and world society—but the core concept is international society. Andrew Linklater regards the concept of international society as the primary analytical target of the English School. Starting from this core concept, the classical English School gradually developed a narrative of the expansion of European international society. Its core content includes three points: first, anarchical international society first emerged and was consolidated in Europe, following the institutions of the Westphalian system, such as sovereignty, balance of power, war, international law, diplomacy, and great-power management; second, European states established various colonies worldwide to secure the dominant position of European international society; third, the post-World War II wave of decolonization gradually brought the vast number of Third World countries into membership of international society.

国际社会的扩展研究主要是指欧洲国际社会议题本身。英国学派提出了国际体系、国际社会与世界社会三大概念，但核心概念是国际社会。林克莱特（Andrew Linklater）将国际社会概念视为英国学派的首要分析目标。从这一核心概念出发，经典英国学派逐渐发展出一套欧洲国际社会的扩展叙事。其核心内容包括三点：一是无政府国际社会首先在欧洲产生并得以巩固，遵循威斯特伐利亚体系的主权、均势、战争、国际法、外交和大国管理等制度；二是欧洲国家通过建立各种殖民地在世界范围内确立欧洲国际社会的主导地位；三是二战后的非殖民化浪潮促使广大第三世界国家逐渐成为国际社会的成员。

The four representative works of the classical English School that elucidate the milestones of European international society are *The Anarchical Society*, *The Expansion of International Society*, *The 'Civilizing' Standard in International Society*, and *The Evolution of International Society*. In terms of direction-setting, Bull's *The Anarchical Society* first opened up the intellectual agenda, while the latter three works deepen and reflect upon the relevant issues set by Bull. In terms of content elaboration and expression of ideas, *The 'Civilizing' Standard in International Society* and *The Evolution of International Society* are more profound, detailed, and coherent. Gerrit W. Gong first noticed the cultural norms and "standard of civilization" implicitly underlying European international society, conducting an in-depth exploration of the nature and operation of the "standard of civilization." Gong's main contribution lies in being the first to combine the "standard of civilization" with the expansion of European international society for examination, offering a certain critique of the strong and unreflective Eurocentrism of Wight and others; however, due to insufficient critical force, his writing still carries a Eurocentric tinge. Adam Watson's *The Evolution of International Society* absorbs the reflections on state system and international order from *The Anarchical Society*, draws on the historical narrative of the expansion of European international society from *The Expansion of International Society*, and combines this with comparative analysis of numerous international systems to propose the controversial "pendulum" theoretical model. By incorporating empire as an analytical type of political entity into the reference framework of the classical English School, he deepens the understanding of the two concepts of international system and international society, providing a dynamic explanation of the evolution of international society. At the same time, he also examines the relationship between post-1945 decolonization and European international society.

经典英国学派阐释欧洲国际社会里程碑式的四部代表作是《无政府社会》《国际社会的扩展》《国际社会中的“文明”标准》与《国际社会的演进》。在方向设定上，布尔的《无政府社会》首先开启知识议题，后三部著作则是对布尔所设定相关议题的深化和反思。在内容阐释和思想表达上，《国际社会中的“文明”标准》和《国际社会的演进》更为深入、细致和连贯。江文汉首次注意到欧洲国际社会背后暗含的文化规范与“文明标准”问题，对“文明标准”的本质和运作进行了深入探讨。江文汉的主要贡献在于首次将“文明标准”与欧洲国际社会的扩展结合起来考察，一定意义上批判了怀特等人强烈且未加自省的欧洲中心主义，但由于批判力度不够，其行文之间仍带有欧洲中心主义色彩。沃森的《国际社会的演进》吸收了《无政府社会》关于国家体系和国际秩序的思考，也借鉴了《国际社会的扩展》关于欧洲国际社会扩展的历史叙述，再结合对诸多国际体系的比较分析，提出了颇具争议的“钟摆”理论模型。他将帝国作为一种政治实体的分析类型纳入经典英国学派的参照系中，从而深化了对国际体系和国际社会两大概念的理解，提供了一种关于国际社会演进的动态解释。同时，他还对1945年后非殖民化与欧洲国际社会的关系予以考察。

The classical English School provided a historical exposition of the emergence and expansion of European international society, laying the foundation for this narrative, but its defect lies in a clear lack of reflection. There are three main types of criticism of the classical international society narrative. The first type of criticism argues that although the classical international society narrative takes non-Western states into account, it fails to notice that the latter often act passively or respond under compulsion, thereby minimizing the agency of non-Western states and neglecting the important role of non-Western actors in shaping global history. The second type of criticism mainly comes from Jens Bartelson. He points out that the English School's concept of society has a unique semantic connotation, reflecting a series of intellectual quests by Europe when facing issues such as political legitimacy and scientific validity. However, whether this concept remains applicable to the study of international politics once removed from its specific context is questionable. The third type of criticism directly indicates that the classical international society narrative fails to reflect on its complex relationship with colonialism: on the one hand, the English School has not adequately confronted or discussed Europe's colonial history, obscuring the violent conflicts, racial massacres, and economic plunder involved; on the other hand, the English School finds it difficult to explain the post-1945 international situation, especially the decolonization movements in the vast regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America during the 1950s and 1960s.

经典英国学派针对欧洲国际社会的出现和扩展进行了历史向度的阐述，奠定了这一叙事的立论基础，但其缺陷在于反思明显不足。对经典国际社会叙事的批评主要有三种。第一种批评认为尽管经典国际社会叙事将非西方国家纳入考量范围，但并未留意到后者往往是消极行事或被迫回应，这就将非西方国家的能动性降至最低，从而忽视了非西方行为体在塑造全球历史中的重要角色。第二种批评主要来自简斯·巴特尔森(Jens Bartelson)。他指出，英国学派的社会概念具有独特的语义内涵，反映出欧洲在面临政治合法性和科学正当性等问题时进行的一系列知识探求。然而，这一概念离开特定语境后是否仍适用于国际政治研究是值得怀疑的。第三种批评意见直接指明，经典国际社会叙事并未反思其与殖民主义的复杂关系：一方面，英国学派未能充分正视和讨论欧洲的殖民历史，掩盖了其中涉及的暴力冲突、种族屠杀和经济掠夺；另一方面，英国学派难以解释1945年后的国际局势，尤其难以解释20世纪五六十年代广大亚非拉地区的去殖民化运动。

Overall, through the discussions of multiple English School members, the classical narrative of the expansion of international society has completed concept identification, theoretical elaboration, and factual construction. The narrative of the expansion of international society focuses on the construction and operation of international society, mainly interpreting issues such as the concept, emergence, diffusion, maintenance, resistance, and comparison of international society. It tends to treat the history of international society as a means of understanding the past and reconstructing the present international society; its narrative mode is singular and linear, with its "meta-theoretical assumptions built upon the political, social, and scientific experience of European (early) modernity," conducting historical exposition and interpretation from a European perspective and standard, serving the purposes of European states and European order.

整体而言，经典国际社会的扩展叙事经由多位英国学派成员的探讨，已完成了概念指认、理论阐释与事实建构。国际社会的扩展叙事集中关注国际社会的建构与运作，主要诠释国际社会的概念、产生、扩散、维持、抵抗与比较等问题，倾向于将国际社会的历史作为理解过去和重建当下国际社会的一种手段；其叙事方式单一且呈线性发展，“元理论假设建立在欧洲（早期）现代性的政治、社会和科学经验之上”，是以欧洲视角和标准，以服务于欧洲国家和欧洲秩序为目的进行历史阐述和解读的。

02

02

The Study of the Turn of International Society

国际社会的转向研究

The classical English School did not show strong interest in regional international societies, but the new English School, with its intensifying reflective awareness, has developed a keen interest in exploring the historical evolution and social structure of regional international societies, leading to a corresponding turn in the study of the expansion of international society. Robert Jackson argues that the English School should focus on the regional differences of contemporary international society. Barry Buzan has also pointed out that when the modernity revolution expands from the narrow core region of the West to the globe, comparative narratives characterized by multiple modernities and regional international societies will once again become important. In 2005, the "regional agenda" of the English School was formally launched. The new English School has conducted a series of analyses centered on regional international societies, with the geographical scope covering Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, Central Asia, Latin America, and Africa, among which the most notable is East Asian international society. Currently, East Asian international society has become a research hotspot, with most studies revolving around three major issues: the integration of China and Japan into international society, China's peaceful rise, and the Chinese School.

经典英国学派并未对区域国际社会表现出强烈兴趣，而新英国学派随着反思意识的不断强化，对探究区域国际社会的历史演进和社会结构产生浓厚的兴趣，国际社会的扩展研究也相应发生了转向。杰克逊认为，英国学派应重点关注当代国际社会的区域性差异。布赞也曾指出，当现代性革命从西方狭小的核心区域扩展至全球时，以多元现代性和区域国际社会为表征的比较叙事将再次变得重要。2005年，英国学派的“地区议程”正式启动。新英国学派围绕区域国际社会展开了一系列分析，地理范围囊括欧洲、东亚、中东、中亚、拉丁美洲以及非洲等地区，其中最引人注目的是东亚国际社会。目前，东亚国际社会已成为研究热点，多数研究围绕中日融入国际社会、中国和平崛起与中国学派三大议题展开。

First, the integration of China and Japan into international society is not a new issue but a research field initiated by scholars such as Wight and Bull and continuing to the present. However, with the turn in English School research, this issue has shown two new trends: one is exploring the relationship between East Asian society and Western society in the early modern period (before Europe's rise and global dominance), and the other is focusing on the complex process of China and Japan's integration into Western international society.

其一，中日融入国际社会并非新议题，而是经由怀特和布尔等学者开启并延续至今的研究领域。但随着英国学派的研究转向，该议题呈现两种新趋势：一是探讨现代早期（欧洲崛起并主导世界格局之前）的东亚社会与西方社会的关系，二是关注中日融入西方国际社会的复杂进程。

Regarding the relationship between early modern East Asian society and Western society, Zhang Yongjin and Shogo Suzuki have made significant contributions. Zhang Yongjin argues that ancient China gradually developed a distinctive international system, which until the second half of the 19th century remained constrained by its own rules, norms, discourses, and institutions. The tributary system, as an important institutional manifestation of this international system, "was rooted in the complex social relations between participating states and the founding state, and possessed a set of special institutions that helped define acceptable and legitimate norms of state behavior." During the Ming and Qing dynasties, "the participation of European states and non-state actors in the political, economic, social, and cultural order of the Chinese empire depended on their adaptation to, following of, or acceptance of the norms, values, and mechanisms within the Chinese world order." Shogo Suzuki is dedicated to excavating the historical details and theoretical reflections of early modern Japan-Europe interaction. He points out that during the Tokugawa shogunate, Japan attempted to establish a small-scale alternative tributary system centered on itself. To achieve this goal, "for Japan's feudal rulers, Europeans could become useful tools to demonstrate their broad prestige as righteous rulers and to consolidate the legitimacy of their rule."

就现代早期东亚社会与西方社会的关系而言，张勇进和铃木胜吾（Shogo Suzuki）贡献颇多。张勇进认为古代中国逐渐发展出了一个独特的国际体系，直到19世纪下半叶仍受制于自身设置的规则、规范、话语和制度。朝贡体系作为这一国际体系重要的制度表现，“根植于参与国与建立国之间复杂的社会关系，并且拥有一套有助于对可接受的、合法的国家行为规范进行界定的特殊制度”。明清之际“欧洲国家与非国家行为者在政治、文化和商贸上对中华帝国政治、经济、社会和文化秩序的参与取决于欧洲人对中华世界秩序中的规范、价值观和机制的适应、跟进或接受情况”。铃木胜吾致力于挖掘现代早期日欧互动的历史细节与理论反思。他指出，德川幕府时期的日本试图建立以自身为中心的小范围替代性朝贡体系，为达此目的，“对日本的封建统治者而言，欧洲人可以成为有用的工具，借此展示他们作为正义统治者的广泛声望，并巩固其统治的合法性”。

Regarding the integration of China and Japan into Western international society, Zhang Yongjin and Suzuki Shogo focus on the process and outcomes of this integration. First, Zhang Yongjin explores the course of China’s integration into international society, paying particular attention to the transformation of the tributary system during this process, China’s socialization during the Republican period, and the socialization process after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Suzuki Shogo, in contrast, emphasizes a comparison of the socialization processes of China and Japan. He argues that the two countries exhibit both similar and distinct characteristics. China occupies an ambiguous state between “adaptation” and “strategic learning,” while Japan more actively engages in “imitative learning.” Second, Suzuki Shogo contends that whether China and Japan accept European international society depends on the degree to which they identify with its “standard of civilization.” China “is not interested in identifying with European international society or seeking membership” and sees no need to conform to its international norms. Japan, by contrast, explicitly emulates the West, attempting to transform from a participant in East Asian international society into a “civilized” member of European international society, and repeatedly imposes the dual nature of international society on other East Asian countries. Overall, the issue of China’s and Japan’s integration into international society challenges the one-sidedness of the narrative of the expansion of international society, aiming to “break Bull’s and Watson’s view of the globalization of international society as a rational or even orderly process.”

在中日融入西方国际社会方面，张勇进和铃木胜吾着重讨论中日融入国际社会的过程和结果。首先，张勇进探讨了中国融入国际社会的历程，尤其关注朝贡体系在中国融入国际社会过程中的变化、民国时期中国的社会化过程以及1949年新中国成立后的社会化过程。铃木胜吾则重在比较中日间的社会化进程。他认为中日呈现既相似又迥异的特征。中国介于“适应”和“策略学习”的模糊状态，日本更多表现为积极的“模仿学习”。其次，铃木胜吾认为，中日是否接受欧洲国际社会，取决于两国在多大程度上认同其“文明标准”。中国“对认同欧洲国际社会和寻求成员资格不感兴趣”，也认为不必迎合欧洲国际社会的国际规范。日本则明确效仿西方，试图从东亚国际社会的参与者转变为欧洲国际社会的“文明”成员，并将国际社会的两面性不断加诸东亚其他国家。整体而言，中日融入国际社会议题质疑了国际社会扩展叙事的片面性，致力于“打破布尔和沃森将国际社会的全球化过程视为理性甚至有序的看法”。

Second, the issue of China’s peaceful rise is another important agenda in contemporary English School East Asian studies. Relevant discussions can be divided into two categories: one primarily focuses on the basic issues of China’s rise, while the other concentrates on the question of global power transition.

其二，中国和平崛起议题是当代英国学派东亚研究的另一重要议程。相关讨论可分为两类：一类主要关注中国崛起的基本问题，另一类则集中探讨全球权力转换问题。

Regarding a series of basic issues concerning China’s peaceful rise, the English School is mainly divided into a historical tendency represented by Barry Buzan and others, and a constructivist tendency represented by Ian Clark and others. Buzan focuses on the history, reality, and future of China’s rise. He argues that China is rising peacefully but must still properly manage its relations with the United States, Japan, and international society. These three relationships affect the prospects of China’s peaceful rise to varying degrees, constituting both potential challenges and historical opportunities for China’s continued development. Clark and Dunn and others place greater emphasis on considering the three elements of power, legitimacy, and responsibility. Clark argues for the need to construct an integrated framework linking power, legitimacy, and responsibility. Dunn argues that China’s rise will not challenge the current international system but will instead stabilize and maintain international order. China has gradually participated in dialogues concerning international responsibility and can be regarded as a reliable partner.

就中国和平崛起的一系列基本问题而言，英国学派主要分为以布赞等人为代表的历史学倾向和伊恩·克拉克（Ian Clark）等人为代表的建构主义倾向。布赞关注中国崛起的历史、现实与未来。他认为中国正在和平崛起，但仍须妥善处理与美、日以及国际社会的关系，这三重关系不同程度地影响着中国和平崛起的前景，既构成和平崛起的潜在挑战，也为中国继续发展提供了历史机遇。克拉克和邓恩等人更为注重考量权力、合法性与责任三重要素。克拉克认为需要构建一个权力、合法性和责任相互关联的综合框架。邓恩认为中国崛起不会挑战当今国际体系，反而稳定和维持了国际秩序。中国已逐渐参与到有关国际责任的对话中，可被视为一个可靠的合作伙伴。

Regarding the issue of global power transition, Buzan and Amitav Acharya are more concerned with the prospects of power transition and world order, while Clark and Zhang Yongjin pay more attention to the mutual shaping of international norms and international order. Buzan and others point out that it is premature to discuss the end of Western hegemony, as the rising non-Western countries have not yet developed into a highly cohesive and influential whole within international society. Clark argues that China’s rise occurs within the existing framework, norms, and order, and therefore China cannot be regarded as a challenger to U.S. hegemony. Similar to Clark’s normative argument, Zhang Yongjin also believes that China’s rise has largely strengthened the liberal global order.

就全球权力转换问题而言，布赞和阿查亚较为关注权力转换与世界秩序的前景，克拉克和张勇进则更留意国际规范与国际秩序的相互形塑。布赞等人指出，探讨西方霸权的终结为时尚早，正在崛起的非西方国家尚未发展为国际社会中具有高度凝聚力和影响力的整体。克拉克认为中国的崛起是在现有框架、规范与秩序内发生的，因此不能将中国视为美国霸权的挑战者。与克拉克的规范性论点相似，张勇进也认为中国崛起很大程度上加强了自由全球秩序。

Unlike the zero-sum game logic prevalent in American academia, the English School’s exploration of contemporary China’s peaceful rise represents a moderate, eclectic, and more realistic analysis. The English School’s historically rooted social-structural perspective provides better insight into the relationship between China and international society and more clearly observes the relationships between different levels, such as the global and the regional.

不同于美国学界零和博弈的思维逻辑，英国学派针对当代中国和平崛起的探讨代表了一种温和折中也更贴合实际的分析。英国学派根植于历史的社会结构观点，更好洞察到中国与国际社会的关系，并更清楚地观察到全球和地区等不同层次间的关系。

Third, the issues related to a Chinese School were not a pre-set knowledge agenda for the English School but rather an extended issue arising from China’s peaceful rise, and also a partial response to the question “Why is there no non-Western international theory?” Relevant discussions unfold around four aspects: feasibility, construction pathways, international exchange, and the knowledge structure of International Relations as a discipline.

其三，针对中国学派的相关议题并非英国学派事先设定的知识议题，而是伴随中国和平崛起产生的延伸问题，也是对“为什么没有非西方国际理论”的部分回应。相关讨论围绕可行性、构建路径、国际交流、国际关系学知识结构四方面展开。

First, the feasibility of creating a Chinese School. There has been ongoing debate within Chinese academia about whether to establish a Chinese School, while the English School believes that China indeed needs to establish a Chinese School locally. Acharya explicitly stated in 2015 that a Chinese School is particularly important for developing a world historical narrative of International Relations, demonstrating the necessity of constructing a Global International Relations. Zhang Yongjin and Peter Marcus Kristensen argue that a Chinese School can be seen as a broad intellectual dialogue or “thought coalition,” based on a shared belief in creating a Chinese School and a strong interest in its construction. Second, the intellectual resources for constructing a Chinese School. The English School suggests that Chinese scholars return to history, focusing on three periods: the pre-Qin period, the feudal dynastic period, and the period after the founding of the People’s Republic of China. They argue that the Hundred Schools of Thought during the pre-Qin period can provide a continuous cultural resource for a Chinese School, and the international practices of hegemonic struggles among multiple states can offer Chinese scholars analytical cases of anarchic state systems and hegemonic systems; the feudal period encompasses historical cases such as the tributary system, marriage alliances, and imperial governance; the diplomatic thought and practice of Chinese leaders after 1949 are also direct intellectual sources for Chinese scholars constructing a Chinese School. Third, international exchange surrounding various theoretical innovations of a Chinese School. The English School focuses on the knowledge production of a Chinese School, paying attention to Tianxiaism, the relational theory of world politics, moral realism, and symbiosis theory. They argue that moral realism, relational theory, symbiosis theory, and Tianxiaism indicate that a self-consciously reflective cognitive community of Chinese International Relations has emerged. However, at the same time, knowledge construction concerning China is still in its initial stage. Finally, reflections on the knowledge structure of International Relations extended from the Chinese School. Kristensen argues that International Relations is an asymmetric center-periphery hierarchical structure. American International Relations occupies the central position, European International Relations is in a semi-peripheral position, and the Chinese School and the international theories of other emerging powers are at the outermost periphery. The Chinese School is a specific theory rooted in China’s geography and culture, capable of disseminating and carving out a unique knowledge space within the global knowledge structure of International Relations. Zhang Yongjin also argues that within the global knowledge structure of International Relations, the label of a certain school serves as a tool for the center (the United States) to suppress the periphery (non-Western countries). The center acknowledges the existence of peripheral theories but, by defining them as specific geographical schools, denies their potential to develop into universal theories. The Chinese School issue, as another research hotspot following the regional turn in the English School’s international society narrative, has generated a considerable body of research output. This knowledge issue is inseparable from the process of constructing a Chinese School within China itself, placing Chinese International Relations academia and the English School within the same knowledge space and effectively linking the two.

首先，创建中国学派的可行性。中国国内的学术界对于是否建立中国学派一直存有争议，而英国学派则认为中国确有必要在本土建立中国学派。阿查亚在2015年明确指出，中国学派对发展国际关系学的世界历史叙述尤其重要，它证明了构建全球国际关系学的必要性。张勇进和彼得·克里斯滕森（Peter Marcus Kristensen）认为，中国学派可被视为一种广泛的知识对话或“思想联盟”，其基础是对创建中国学派的共同信念，以及对中国学派建设的强烈兴趣。其次，构建中国学派的思想资源。英国学派建议中国学者回归历史，重点关注先秦、封建王朝和新中国成立后三个时期。他们认为先秦时期的诸子百家可为中国学派提供源源不断的文化资源，诸侯争霸、多国林立的国际实践可为中国学者提供无政府国家体系和霸权体系的分析案例；封建时期涵盖朝贡体系、和亲联姻、帝国管理等历史案例；1949年后中国领导人的外交思想和外交实践也是中国学者建构中国学派的直接思想来源。再次，围绕中国学派种种理论创见的国际交流。英国学派聚焦中国学派的知识生产，对天下主义、关系理论、道义现实主义、共生理论均有关注。他们认为道义现实主义、关系理论、共生理论及天下主义表明，一个自觉反思的中国国际关系认知共同体已经出现。但与此同时，有关中国的知识建设仍处于初始阶段。最后，由中国学派延伸出的对国际关系学知识结构的反思。克里斯滕森认为国际关系学是一个不对称的中心—边缘分层结构。美国国际关系学居于中心地位，欧洲国际关系学处于半边缘位置，中国学派和其他新兴大国的国际关系理论处于最外围。中国学派是一种根植于中国地理文化的特殊理论，可以在国际关系学的全球知识结构中传播并开拓独特的知识空间。张勇进也认为，在全球国际关系学知识结构中，某种学派的标签是作为中心的美国压制作为边缘的非西方国家的工具。中心承认边缘理论的存在，但通过将边缘理论定义为特定地理学派，否定其发展为普遍理论的潜力。中国学派议题作为英国学派国际社会叙事区域转向后的又一研究热点，已涌现出较多研究成果。这一知识议题与中国学派在中国本土的建构进程密不可分，它将中国国际关系学界与英国学派置于同一知识空间，将二者有效联结起来。

From the perspective of knowledge production, the many knowledge issues following the turn to international society each constitute their own problematiques while also being interconnected. To date, the English School has adhered to normative research. Even when exploring the highly practical knowledge issue of China’s peaceful rise, it has not relied on complex data integration and statistical models as positivism does. Whether it is the narrative of the expansion of European international society or the subsequent study of regional international societies, both fall within the research domain of the international society issue, and the intergenerational transmission of knowledge is exceptionally evident. On the basis of criticizing and reflecting on the narrative of the expansion of European international society, the English School turned to regional international societies, and the study of regional international societies has continuously pushed the English School to re-examine the potential cognitive biases and knowledge blind spots in previous research. From the perspective of social connection, the study of regional international societies, on the one hand, brings the regional dimension neglected by classical English School back into the research field of vision, helping to strengthen social ties and academic bonds between different regional studies; on the other hand, scholars from different regions frequently engage in academic discussions and knowledge exchanges on the issue of regional international societies, promoting the openness and inclusiveness of the English School.

从知识生产角度来讲，国际社会转向后的诸多知识议题既各成问题域，又相互关联。迄今为止，英国学派仍坚持规范研究，即便是探究中国和平崛起这一极具现实意义的知识议题，也并未如实证主义那样以复杂的数据整合和统计模型加以论证。无论是欧洲国际社会的扩展叙事还是转向后的区域国际社会研究，都同属国际社会议题的研究范畴，知识的代际传承异常明显。在批判与反思欧洲国际社会扩展叙事的基础上，英国学派转向区域国际社会，而区域国际社会研究也不断推动英国学派重新审视以往研究中潜在的认知偏见与知识误区。从社会联结角度考察，区域国际社会研究一方面将经典英国学派所忽视的区域维度重新拉回研究视野，有助于加强不同区域研究间的社会联系与学术纽带；另一方面，来自不同地区的学者就区域国际社会议题频繁展开学术讨论与知识交流，促进了英国学派的开放性与包容性。

VI. Conclusion

六、结语

The evolution and development of the English School is both a knowledge phenomenon and a social phenomenon. This is not only a knowledge reflection of social facts, but also a social construction completed by scholars in their academic practical activities. The development of the English School is influenced by several social factors: first, its internal discussions; second, its interactions with other knowledge communities; third, the symbiotic relationship between knowledge and sociality. Knowledge and sociality do not exclude interdisciplinary exchange; in fact, cognitive reason permits and even requires the incorporation of external insights into oneself and the conduct of extensive discussion. As knowledge producers, disseminators, and reflectors, the English School continuously manifests its role as a knowledge subject through theoretical empowerment, and constructs an open and broad academic network through knowledge dissemination. In this sense, the knowledge and sociality of the English School will continue to be manifested.

英国学派的发展演变既是一种知识现象也是一种社会现象，这不仅是社会事实的知识反映，还是学者在学术实践活动中完成的社会性建构。英国学派的发展受到若干社会因素的影响：一是其内部讨论，二是与其他知识群体的互动，三是知识性与社会性的交融共生关系。知识性与社会性并不排斥跨学科交流，事实上认知理性允许也要求将外部证见加诸己身并展开广泛讨论。作为知识生产者、传播者与反思者，英国学派不断通过理论赋义彰显其知识主体角色，借由知识传播构建开放广泛的学术网络，在这个意义上，英国学派的知识性与社会性将继续得以彰显。

(Author biographies: Ren Dongbo, Professor, School of History and Archives, Yunnan University; Feng Shuai, Doctoral Candidate, School of Literature, Jilin University)

（作者简介：任东波，云南大学历史与档案学院教授；冯帅，吉林大学文学院博士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心