第一章：研究范式与问题意识 | Chapter 1: Paradigms and Problematics in the Study of Global Reconfiguration

大航海时代（Age of Exploration），这一自15世纪末延续至17世纪的历史进程，远非仅仅是地理发现与技术进步的简单叙事。它是一场深刻的、全球性的秩序重构（global reconfiguration），其核心动力在于跨洋航线的开辟如何作为催化剂，触发了政治、经济、社会、生态与知识体系的多维度重组。对这段历史的研究，由此成为理解现代世界起源的钥匙。然而，学术界的诠释长期受限于特定的范式与视角，未能充分把握这一复杂转型的非线性本质与权力不对称性。本章旨在系统性地批判性回顾既有学术史，梳理世界体系理论、全球史与后殖民研究等主要范式，辨析其核心洞见与内在局限，并在此基础上，提出本书所主张的“互动-结构”（Interaction-Structure）分析框架，以期构建一个更具解释力与辩证性的研究路径。

The Age of Exploration, a historical process spanning from the late 15th to the 17th century, is far more than a simple narrative of geographic discovery and technological progress. It was a profound, global reconfiguration of world order, driven by the catalytic role of transoceanic route openings in triggering multidimensional reorganizations of political, economic, social, ecological, and epistemic systems. The study of this period thus becomes pivotal to understanding the origins of the modern world. However, scholarly interpretations have long been constrained by specific paradigms and perspectives, failing to fully capture the nonlinear nature and asymmetric power dynamics inherent in this complex transformation. This chapter aims to provide a systematic and critical review of the existing historiography, outlining major paradigms such as World-Systems Theory, Global History, and Postcolonial Studies, analyzing their core insights and inherent limitations. Building upon this critique, it will introduce the "Interaction-Structure" analytical framework advocated by this book, seeking to establish a more explanatory and dialectical approach.

早期研究，尤其是19世纪至20世纪上半叶的西方中心主义叙事，将大航海时代浪漫化为“英雄的探索”（heroic exploration）与“文明的传播”（civilizing mission）。以约翰·费斯克（John Fiske）等人的著作为代表，这一范式聚焦于欧洲航海家的个人勇气、技术进步（如卡拉维尔帆船、星盘的应用）以及基督教传播的“使命”，将非欧洲世界视为被动的、等待被“发现”与“启蒙”的对象。其贡献在于初步整理了航海史的基本事实与技术史脉络，但其根本局限在于深刻的欧洲中心论（Eurocentrism）与文明等级观，完全忽视了航线开辟对 indigenous 社会造成的毁灭性冲击（如人口锐减、文化断层），以及亚洲、美洲、非洲内部复杂的能动性（agency）与既有全球联系网络（如印度洋贸易圈、跨撒哈拉贸易）。这种叙事将世界秩序的重构简化为欧洲文明的单向辐射，掩盖了暴力征服、疾病传播与资源掠夺这一进程的黑暗内核。

Early scholarship, particularly the Western-centric narratives of the 19th and early 20th centuries, romanticized the Age of Exploration as a "heroic exploration" and "civilizing mission." Represented by works from scholars like John Fiske, this paradigm focused on the personal courage of European navigators, technological advancements (such as the caravel and astrolabe), and the "mission" of spreading Christianity, portraying the non-European world as passive objects awaiting "discovery" and "enlightenment." Its contribution lies in the initial compilation of basic facts of navigational history and technological developments, but its fundamental limitation is its profound Eurocentrism and hierarchical view of civilizations. It completely ignored the devastating impacts on indigenous societies (such as population collapse and cultural disruption) and the complex agency and pre-existing global networks (like the Indian Ocean trade system and trans-Saharan trade) within Asia, the Americas, and Africa. This narrative reduces the reorganization of world order to a unidirectional radiation of European civilization, obscuring the dark underbelly of violent conquest, disease transmission, and resource plunder that constituted the process.

20世纪中叶兴起的世界体系理论（World-Systems Theory, WST），以伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦（Immanuel Wallerstein）的巨著《现代世界体系》为代表，实现了研究范式的重大转向。WST将大航海时代视为“现代世界体系”的诞生起点，强调以欧洲（后为核心国）为中心，通过殖民掠夺与不平等交换，将美洲、亚洲、非洲纳入一个等级化的“中心-边缘”结构。其革命性贡献在于：第一，提供了宏大的结构性分析框架，将分散的区域历史纳入统一的全球资本主义发展脉络；第二，揭示了经济剥削与剩余价值榨取作为世界秩序重构的核心机制；第三，赋予了边缘地区以“依附”与“半边缘”的角色，在一定程度上承认了非欧洲世界在体系中的结构性位置。然而，WST的局限同样显著：它过度经济决定论，将政治、文化、意识形态等因素简化为经济基础的附属；其“中心-边缘”的二元模型过于静态与同质化，难以解释边缘地区内部的多样性、反抗策略的差异性以及跨区域联系的复杂网络（如亚洲内部贸易在16-17世纪的持续繁荣）；更重要的是，它未能充分容纳非欧洲行动者的主体性，在某种程度上将边缘地区描绘为被动的受害者，而非能动的参与者、协商者乃至体系规则的局部改造者。

The World-Systems Theory (WST) that emerged in the mid-20th century, epitomized by Immanuel Wallerstein's seminal work *The Modern World-System*, marked a significant paradigmatic shift. WST positions the Age of Exploration as the founding moment of the "modern world-system," emphasizing the incorporation of the Americas, Asia, and Africa into a hierarchical "core-periphery" structure centered on Europe (later the core states). Its revolutionary contributions are threefold: First, it provided a grand structural analytical framework, integrating disparate regional histories into a unified narrative of global capitalist development. Second, it revealed economic exploitation and the extraction of surplus value as the core mechanism of world order reorganization. Third, by assigning roles of "periphery" and "semi-periphery" to non-European regions, it to some extent acknowledged the structural positions of the non-European world within the system. Nevertheless, the limitations of WST are equally pronounced: it is overly economistic, subsuming political, cultural, and ideological factors as mere epiphenomena of the economic base; its binary "core-periphery" model is too static and homogenizing to account for the internal diversity of peripheral regions, the variability of resistance strategies, and the complex networks of transregional connections (such as the continued prosperity of intra-Asian trade in the 16th-17th centuries); most importantly, it fails to adequately accommodate the agency of non-European actors, to some extent portraying peripheral regions as passive victims rather than active participants, negotiators, and even partial modifiers of systemic rules.

作为对WST宏大叙事与欧洲中心论的反拨，全球史（Global History）在20世纪90年代后迅速崛起。全球史倡导“从全球思考”（thinking globally），打破民族国家与文明单位的壁垒，关注跨区域交流、商品、人群、思想的流动（“互联互通史”history of connectivity）。代表学者如帕特里克·曼宁（Patrick Manning）、于尔根·奥斯特哈默（Jürgen Osterhammel）等，强调大航海时代是“球化”（globalization）的早期阶段，研究焦点转向跨文化互动、知识交换（如科学革命中的跨文化传播）、生态融合（哥伦布大交换）以及共享的历史经验。全球史的贡献在于彻底打破了地域与学科壁垒，引入了更为丰富的分析单位（如商品链、移民网络、微生物圈），并赋予非欧洲社会以更突出的能动性角色。然而，其内在张力亦不容忽视：首先，全球史有时倾向于描述“联系”的存在而弱化对“权力”的深度分析，可能将充满暴力、不平等与强制性的接触美化为中立、良性的交流；其次，在追求“去中心化”时，可能消解了欧洲崛起这一历史事实的特殊性与结构性影响，陷入另一种形式的“去历史化”；第三，其方法论上的“横向主义”（horizontalism）——强调平行比较与网络分析——有时会削弱对长时段结构性变革（如资本主义世界体系的形成）的追踪能力。

As a counterpoint to the grand narratives and Eurocentrism of WST, Global History rapidly gained prominence after the 1990s. Global History advocates "thinking globally," breaking down barriers of nation-states and civilizational units to focus on flows of goods, people, and ideas across regions ("history of connectivity"). Represented by scholars like Patrick Manning and Jürgen Osterhammel, it positions the Age of Exploration as an early phase of "globalization," shifting focus to cross-cultural interactions, knowledge exchanges (such as the cross-cultural transmission in the Scientific Revolution), ecological integration (the Columbian Exchange), and shared historical experiences. The contribution of Global History lies in its complete demolition of geographical and disciplinary barriers, introducing richer units of analysis (such as commodity chains, migration networks, and microbiomes) and granting non-European societies a more prominent agentive role. However, its internal tensions are undeniable: First, Global History sometimes tends to describe the existence of "connections" while attenuating deep analysis of "power," potentially romanticizing contacts that were often violent, unequal, and coercive into neutral, benign exchanges. Second, in its pursuit of "decentering," it may dissolve the particularity and structural impact of European rise, risking another form of "dehistoricization." Third, its methodological "horizontalism"—emphasizing parallel comparison and network analysis—can sometimes weaken the ability to track long-term structural transformations (such as the formation of the capitalist world-system).

后殖民研究（Postcolonial Studies）与亚裔研究（Subaltern Studies）则从权力、话语与知识生产的层面，对大航海时代的学术叙事本身进行了深刻解构。爱德华·萨义德（Edward Said）的《东方学》揭示了西方如何通过知识建构将东方“他者化”，为殖民统治提供合法性。后殖民学者关注殖民话语如何塑造对非欧洲世界的认知，以及被殖民者如何抵抗、协商并重塑自身身份。亚裔研究（如以查图帕蒂·古哈为代表的印度学派）则致力于从底层书写历史，发掘subaltern群体（农民、部落、劳工）的能动性，挑战以精英和殖民档案为中心的叙述。其巨大价值在于将文化霸权、知识权力与身份政治引入核心分析，揭露了传统史学中隐含的殖民视角，并努力恢复被压抑的声音。然而，其方法论也面临挑战：过度