- 相关推荐
剖析传播学术中的“欧洲中心主义”-亚洲中心性在理论及研究去
三池贤孝 J. Z. 爱门森
关键词： 学术依赖 非洲中心性 亚洲中心性 传播理论 文化特定性 去西方化 多样性 欧洲中心主义 人性 横截性
[摘要]：本文对欧洲中心的传播知识结构加以质疑，提出亚洲传播研究中亚洲中心性的合理性。文章的第一部分对人性、文化特定性和传播的本质及其交叉加以重新阐释；第二部分接着论述了欧洲中心主义作为意识形态的“笼统化”（totalization）和“轻视化”（trivialization）；第三部分对“亚洲中心性”的元理论概念加以阐明，证明其理论必要性。本文最后提出亚洲中心性对传播学术进行“去西方化”的五条途径。它们是：（1）形成与亚洲传播讨论相应的理论认识；（2）关注于亚洲传播经验的多样性和复杂性；（3）省察地构建及批判地改进亚洲传播的讨论；（4）对“如何在亚洲文化特定性中表达和理解人性的普遍特征”进行理论探讨；（5）对理论研究中的欧洲中心倾向加以批评，并且帮助亚洲研究者克服学术依赖。
把许多不同的原生纽带混为一谈，或是把它们统统归入民族主义/地方主义的范畴中，这样的做法很常见，却把我们引入歧途，非常危险……种族、性别、语言（母语）、祖籍（故土）、阶层和宗教信仰都是我们作为“人”最基本的组成部分。它们告诉我们自己是谁，并且为我们提供必要的资源、让我们成为自己选择成为的样子。它们各自表达了人性的一个基本方面。
——杜维明（1992，p. 338）
Abstract: This article problematizes the Eurocentric structure of communicative knowledge and advocates the legitimacy of Asiacentricity in Asian communication studies. The first section of the article re-articulates the nature and intersection of humanity, cultural particularities, and communication. The second section then addresses Eurocentrism as ideologies of totalization and trivialization. The third section clarifies the metatheoretical notion of Asiacentricity and argues for its intellectual necessity. The present article finally envisions five ways in which Asiacentricity de-Westernizes communication scholarship. Asiacentricity (1) generates theoretical knowledge that corresponds to Asian communication discourse, (2) focuses on the multiplicity and complexity of Asian communicative experience, (3) reflexively constitutes and critically transforms Asian communication discourse, (4) theorizes how universal aspects of humanity are expressed and understood in Asian cultural particularities, and (5) critiques Eurocentric biases in theory and research and helps Asian researchers overcome academic dependency. [China Media Report Overseas. 2010; 6(2): 1-13]
Keywords: academic dependency, Afrocentricity, Asiacentricity, communication theory, cultural particularities, de-Westernization, diversity, Eurocentrism, humanity, transversality
引言：文化遗产是力量之源
人性深植于人类最原生的纽带中；脱离原生纽带，人类的日常存在都将失去意义。正是这种原生的纽带让我们成为独一无二的、实在的人类；因此，我们有必要从“表达（expression）的来源”和“压制（oppression）的来源”这两个角度对其进行反思和重铸。这正是杜维明（2007）一直希望在当今这个全球化和本土化趋势并存的年代大力推崇儒家的智慧。用他自己的话来说，“原生纽带并不只是消极地限制我们，只有顺应它们，认识到它们同时也是力量源泉， 我们才能够在积极参与全球化中获益，因为全球趋势其实是以根植于本土为基础的”（P. 143）。我们不应该舍弃这种原始纽带，而应该将之作为文化遗产而加以转化。我们的命运可能会受到它们的控制，但是“我们也拥有对其全部或是其中一部分加以超越、解构和重建的自由”（Tu，1997，p. 179）。不过，在目前的后主义、后解构主义、甚至后殖民主义思潮中，“原生纽带”和“文化特定性”只是被看作影响人们走向社会公平和全球伦理的障碍。
本文认为，如果非西方的传播研究者们忽视了杜维明的看法，不能从非西方的文化特定性出发对传播过程及传播原理加以，那么非西方的传播学术就失去了存在的意义。对亚洲传播进行亚洲中心的研究对于亚洲人的共性特征来说是必不可少的，因为亚洲人一直基于亚洲文化特点进行交流活动。但这一点被忽视了。本文希望通过质疑“非西方学术世界中的欧洲中心知识结构”、详述亚洲中心性在对传播研究进行“去西方化”过程中的作用，从而证实以上论点。本文的第一部分对人性、文化特定性和传播的本质及其交集加以重新阐释；第二部分对欧洲中心主义作为“笼统化”（totalization）/“轻视化”（trivialization）思想方式的身份进行了定义，同时解释了“为什么欧洲中心的知识帝国主义是世界传播学术的障碍”；第三部分对“亚洲中心性”的元理论概念加以阐明，证明其理论必要性。本文最后提出亚洲中心性对传播研究进行“去西方化”的五条途径。
人性、文化特定性和传播
Lee Thayer（1997）说得好，传播是“我们获得人性的过程——不管人性到底是什么、到底怎么样”（p. 207）。在他看来，说话和理解的方式——即“传播”——就是做人的方式。确实，Chen和Miike（2008）曾假设，传播与我们做人的深层感觉密不可分。传播构建了我们在人际关系中的自我概念、我们在社会中的地位和作用、我们的价值观和道德观、我们对于过去的记忆、以及我们对于未来的展望；而与此同时，所有这些也构建了传播。正因为如此，我们不能轻易地改变自己的传播方式和传播行为。如果我们认真地看待这个问题的话，也许，没有什么比传播更难研究、更难提高了。
对人类传播进行理论总结就是对人性得以表达和理解的方式加以考察。人性得在文化特定性——而不是普遍的抽象性中得到深切体会。因此可以说，传播是人性的一种文化特定性表达。比如说，大多数基本情感（比方在这里用说“love”）也是以特定的语言方式、在特定的社会文化语境中进行表达的，伴随着特定的经验累积。Goonasekera和Kuo（2000）提出，亚洲传播专家们应该探讨“探究意义的普遍性过程如何在亚洲的文化环境中进行”。他们说：
所有人都以一定的符号/意义为基础进行传播。所有人类社会都以一定的语言进行传播。人类是寻找意义、创造意义和阐释意义的生物。意义的阐释和协商是普遍存在于所有人类社会的，同时也对于人类传播活动具有中心性……意义在极大程度上受到文化的定义也鹊的传播视角、传播态度和传播行为。我们需要的“传播”语言得少一些“自由的个人的”（agentic）、多一些“社群性”（communal）[6]，少一些“阳”、多一些“阴”，少一些“影响”和“劝说”、多一些“共鸣”与“和谐”，少一些“自说自话”、多一些“对话交流。”（p. 100）
尾声：人性、多样性和横截性
Hwa Yol Jung（1995，2004，2006，2009）曾详细阐明“横截性”（transversality）这一新概念，将之视为认识知识和伦理的一种全球方法。Calvin O. Schrag对这种传播理念进行了阐发，从而用以解决诸如“相同与相异”、“统一与多样”、“现代与后现代”等二元问题。与已经得以广泛使用的“普遍性”（universality）概念不同，“横截性”（transversality）说的是与“跨越”和“相交”有关的问题；它原本是一个几何学概念，是指一条直线与两条及两条以上的直线相交，或与一组直线相交。作为跨文化传播的一种新思路，“横截性”（transversality）是指“跨越不同文化边界的真理相交地带：这是以跨文化方式思考真理的一种方法”（Jung，1995，p. 15）。因此，实现横截统一是“传播的一种成就，因为它是经历了多种不同的观点、视角、信仰体系和地域因素的结果”（Jung，2009，p. 29）。“横截性”的境界就是Chen（2006）所谓“道”的状态，“对真理进行民族中心主义式的垄断性思考应该停止，人性可以在不同文化的聚集体中繁衍不绝”（p. 306）。
在对人性、多样性和传播进行理论研究时，横截性观点有两个重要的意义。第一，“应该克服或者说超越打着普遍性名头的欧洲经典真理（European cannon of truth. Jung，2004，p. 16）。从非洲中心的角度看，Asante（2006）严肃地指出“假定……历史起源于欧洲，或者认为只有写欧洲的事情才算写历史，都是对人类学术的大不敬。当‘特定’转变为‘绝对’，我们不可避免地站在了冲突的风口浪尖”（p. 146）。虽然西方真理常常被看作具有“绝对性”和“普遍性”，横截观点要求传播学者和研究者们仔细考察西方真理的文化特性，并且超越有关普遍真理的这种欧洲中心建构。用Wallerstein（2006）的话来说，应该从“欧洲的普遍主义”转向“普遍的普遍主义”。
第二，与普遍性不同，“横截性”为同时研究探讨人类共性和多样性创造了可能。Palencia-Roth（2006）所言极是，与别的直线横截相交的直线本身并不因相交直线而改变轨迹：“用价值论的话来说，横截价值观是跨域两种或者更多种文化的价值观，对于不同文化来说具有相通的地方，但是又并不会转化成普遍性的价值观。一种文化横截性要想保持其横截特征，就必须保持其特定之处”（p. 38）。因此，每种文化都在维持自身历史传统之特定存在的同时，又在不同的时空下与其他文化相交汇。传播研究者们需要对人类共性与多样性的这种交汇加以解释和描绘，从而对本土群体和全球社会中的传播与关系加以思考。横截性观点要求人们既要研究特定性中的人类共性、也要研究人类共性中的特定性（Miike，2007b，2008c）。
毫无疑问，人性、多样性和横截性将是未来全球传播学术的关键。传播研究的任何领域都无法拒绝人类共性和文化多样性，都必须将自身定位于这二者之间。亚洲中心的研究方法将和非洲中心及其他中心的研究方法一道，产生出具有横截性特点的知识，引领我们对人性、多样性和传播获得更为细致的领悟。亚洲中心性将在解构普遍真理、重建横截现实方面有所作为；本文即意在对亚洲中心性的这种正在出现和正在发展中的作用加以重申和展望。本文再次论述了人性、文化特定性及传播之间无法分割的联系，阐明亚洲中心性的元理论概念及其理论必要性，同时列出了亚洲传播的亚洲中心性研究对现有理论研究进行“去西方化”的五条途径。
[注释]
[1]译者注: 深度描写（thick description）是文化人类学的概念，这个概念是由Clifford Geertz 提出的（见Geertz 的著作 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books, 1973）深度描写是指要以一个文化本身成员的视角来研究描述这个文化。与之相反，浅度描写（thin description）是传统上人类学者以自己（外来人）的视角去研究一个文化。
[2]译者注：思想性质的范式是关于思想的性质和质量的讨论。就是说Asante讨论的并不是什么非洲思想本身，而是何谓从非洲人民文化为视角的思想。
[3]译者注：在韩语中，nunchi是“体会、感知”的意思，ga是“是”的意思，bbarda是“很快”的意思，eupda是“没有”的意思。因此，“nunchi ga bbarda”的意思接近于“很快心领神会”；而“nunchi ga eupda”接近于“没有领会”。其实还有“nunchi ga idda”的表达，其中“idda”是“有”的意思，和“eupda”（没有）相对。因此，“nunchi ga idda”接近于“能够心领神会，心有灵犀”之意。
[4]译者注：元讨论（metadiscourse），或者更贴切地译为后讨论，超讨论，指的是对关于某现象讨论的讨论。
[5]译者注：东方主义（Orientalism）是Edward W. Said提出的概念，是指一种始于欧洲殖民时期的思想，它将中东及远东地区视为西方的对立面，是一个神秘，怪诞，色情，缺乏人性，毫无理性的世界（见Edward W. Said 的Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, New York: Vintage Books, 1978）这种思想一直延续至今，在欧美的社会及学术界中依然盛行。
[6]译者注：对于“agentic”和“communal”这一组概念，国内的翻译并不统一。此处参照邹德强等著《功能性价值和象征性价值对品牌忠诚的影响：性别差异和品牌差异的调节作用》一文中对这两个词的译法。见《南开管理评论》2007 年10 卷，第3 期第4-12 页。
[]
Alatas, S. F. (2002). Eurocentrism and the role of the human sciences in the dialogue among civilizations. The European Legacy, 7(6), 759-770.
Alatas, S. F. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to Eurocentrism. New Delhi, India: Sage.
Asante, M. K. (1998). The Afrocentric idea (Rev. ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Asante, M. K. (1999). The painful demise of Eurocentrism: An Afrocentric response to critics. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
Asante, M. K. (2006). Afrocentricity and the Eurocentric hegemony of knowledge: Contradictions of place. In J. Young & J. E. Braziel (Eds.), Race and foundations of knowledge: Cultural amnesia in the academy (pp. 145-153). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Asante, M. K. (2007a). An Afrocentric manifesto: Toward an African renaissance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Asante, M. K. (2007b). Communicating Africa: Enabling centricity for intercultural engagement. China Media Research, 3(3), 70-75.
Asante, M. K. (2008). The ideological significance of Afrocentricity in intercultural communication. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 47-55). New York: Routledge.
Banerjee, I. (2009). Asian media studies: The struggle for international legitimacy. In D. K. Thussu (Ed.), Internationalizing media studies (pp. 165-174). London: Routledge.
Chen, G.-M. (2002). Problems and prospects of Chinese communication study. In W. Jia, X. Lu, & D. R. Heisey (Eds.), Chinese communication theory and research: Reflections, new frontiers, and new directions (pp. 255-268). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Chen, G.-M. (Ed.). (2004a). Theories and principles of Chinese communication (in Chinese). Taipei, Taiwan: Wunan.
Chen, G.-M. (2004b). The two faces of Chinese communication. Human Communication: A Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 7(1), 25-36.
Chen, G.-M. (2006). Asian communication studies: What and where to now. Review of Communication, 6(4), 295-311.
Chen, G.-M. (2008). Toward transcultural understanding: A harmony theory of Chinese communication. China Media Research, 4(4), 1-13.
Chen, G.-M. (2009). Toward an I Ching model of communication. China Media Research, 5(3), 72-81.
Chen, G.-M., & Miike, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Asian approaches to human communication [Special issue]. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 1-218.
Chen, G.-M., & Miike, Y. (2008). The ferment and future of communication studies in Asia: Chinese and Japanese perspectives (in Chinese, J. Z. Edmondson, Trans.). In J. Z. Edmondson (Ed.), Asiacentric theories of communication (pp. 62-86). Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University Press.
Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: A dialogue. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 1-15.
Chesebro, J. W. (1996, December). Unity in diversity: Multiculturalism, guilt/victimage, and a new scholarly orientation. Spectra: Newsletter of the Speech Communication Association, 32(12), 10-14.
Chesebro, J. W., Kim, J. K., & Lee, D. (2007). Strategic transformations in power and the nature of international communication theory. China Media Research, 3(3), 1-13.
Chu, L. L. (1988). In search of an Oriental communication perspective. In Christian Academy (Ed.), The world community in post-industrial society: Vol. 2. Continuity and change in communications in post-industrial society (pp. 2-14). Seoul, South Korea: Wooseok.
Chung, J., & Ho, M. (2009). Public relations, I-Ching, and chi (qi/ki) theory: A new model from an old philosophy. China Media Research, 5(3), 94-101.
Chung, W., Jeong, J., Chung W., & Park, N. (2005). Comparison of current communication research status in the United States and Korea. Review of Communication, 5(1), 36-48.
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119-161.
Craig, R. T., & Muller, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Theorizing communication: Readings across traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dissanayake, W. (Ed.). (1988). Communication theory: The Asian perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (2007). Re-privileging Asian cultural concepts: Reflections on Edwin Thumboo’s poetry. In E. Thumboo (Eds.), Writing Asia: The literatures in Englishes (Vol. 1, pp. 214-226). Singapore: Ethos Books.
Dissanayake, W. (2009). The desire to excavate Asian theories of communication: One strand of the history. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 7-27.
Edmondson, J. Z. (Ed.). (2008). Asiacentric theories of communication (in Chinese). Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University Press.
Edmondson, J. Z. (2009). Testing the water at the crossing of post-modern, post-American and fu-bian flows: On the Asiacentric school in international communication theories. China Media Research, 5(1), 104-112.
Goonasekera, A. (1995). Communication studies and contemporary societies in Asia. Media Development, 42(2), 21-24.
Goonasekera, A., & Kuo, E. C. Y. (Eds.). (2000). Towards an Asian theory of communication? [Special issue]. Asian Journal of Communication, 10(2), 1-123.
Gordon, R. D. (2006). Communication, dialogue, and transformation. Human Communication: A Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 9(1), 17-30.
Gordon, R. D. (2007a). Beyond the failures of Western communication theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2(2), 89-107.
Gordon, R. D. (2007b). The Asian communication scholar for the 21st century. China Media Research, 3(4), 50-59.
Gunaratne, S. A. (2008). Falsifying two Asian paradigms and de-Westernizing science. Communication, Culture and Critique, 1(1), 72-85.
Gunaratne, S. A. (2009). Globalization: A non-Western perspective—The bias of social science/communication oligopoly. Communication, Culture and Critique, 2(1), 60-82.
Holmes, P. (2008). Foregrounding harmony: Chinese international students’ voices in communication with their New Zealand peers. China Media Research, 4(4), 102-110.
Ishii, S. (2008a). Human-to-human, human-to-nature, human-to-supernature intercultural communication: Toward developing new fields of scholarship (in Japanese). Intercultural Communication Review, 6, 9-17.
Ishii, S. (2008b). Promoting interreligious communication studies: A rising rationale. Human Communication: A Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 11(2), 133-144.
Ishii, S. (2009). Conceptualizing Asian communication ethics: A Buddhist perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 49-60.
Jackson, R. L. (2002). Exploring African American identity negotiation in the academy: Toward a transformative vision of African American communication scholarship. Howard Journal of Communications, 13(1), 43-57.
Jackson, R. L. (2003). Afrocentricity as metatheory: A dialogic exploration of its principles. In R. L. Jackson & E. B. Richardson (Eds.), Understanding African American rhetoric: Classical origins to contemporary innovations (pp. 115-129). New York: Routledge.
Jung, H. Y. (1995). The tao of transversality as a global approach to truth: A metacommentary on Calvin O. Schrag. Man and World: An International Philosophical Review, 28(1), 11-31.
Jung, H. Y. (2004). The ethics of transversal communication. Asian Communication Research, 1(2), 5-21.
Jung, H. Y. (2006). Transversality and comparative culture. Ex/Change: Newsletter of the Center for Cross-Cultural Studies at the City University of Hong Kong, 16, 11-17.
Jung, H. Y. (2009). Transversality and public philosophy in the age of globalization. In J. Y. Park (Ed.), Comparative political theory and cross-cultural philosophy: Essays in honor of Hwa Yol Jung (pp. 19-54). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Karenga, M. (2002). Introduction to Black Studies (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: University of Sankore Press.
Karenga, M. (2008). Molefi Kete Asante and the Afrocentric initiative: Mapping the terrain of his intellectual impact. In A. Mazama (Ed.), Essays in honor of an intellectual warrior, Molefi Kete Asante (pp. 17-49). Paris, France: Editions Menaibuc.
Kim, M.-S. (2002). Non-Western perspectives on human communication: Implications for theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kincaid, D. L. (Ed.). (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kosaka, T. (2008). The use of metaphors in Zen rhetoric. Speech Communication Education: A Journal of the Communication Association of Japan, 21, 55-67.
Lee, P. S. N. (2008). The challenges of communication education in Asia. In I. Banerjee & S. Logan (Eds.), Asian communication handbook 2008 (pp. 58-66). Singapore: Asian Media Information and Communication Center.
Mataragnon, R. H. (1988). Pakikiramdam in Filipino social interaction: A study of subtlety and sensitivity. In A. C. Paranjpe, D. Y. F. Ho, & R. W. Rieber (Eds.), Asian contributions to psychology (pp. 251-262). New York: Praeger.
Mendoza, S. L. (2004). Pahiwatig: The role of “ambiguity” in Filipino American communication patterns. In M. Fong & R. Chuang (Eds.), Communicating ethnic and cultural identity (pp. 151-164). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Miike, Y. (2006). Non-Western theory in Western research? An Asiacentric agenda for Asian communication studies. Review of Communication, 6(1/2), 4-31.
Miike, Y. (2007a). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272-278.
Miike, Y. (2007b). Asian contributions to communication theory: An introduction. China Media Research, 3(4), 1-6.
Miike, Y. (2007c). Theorizing culture and communication in the Asian context: An assumptive foundation (in Chinese, J. Z. Edmondson, Trans.). In J. Z. Edmondson (Ed.), Selected international papers in intercultural communication (pp. 137-157). Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University Press.
Miike, Y. (2008a). Advancing centricity for non-Western scholarship: Lessons from Molefi Kete Asante’s legacy of Afrocentricity. In A. Mazama (Ed.), Essays in honor of an intellectual warrior, Molefi Kete Asante (pp. 287-327). Paris, France: Editions Menaibuc.
Miike, Y. (2008b). Rethinking humanity, culture, and communication: Asiacentric critiques and contributions (in Chinese, J. Z. Edmondson, Trans.). In J. Z. Edmondson (Ed.), Asiacentric theories of communication (pp. 21-43). Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University Press.
Miike, Y. (2008c). Toward an alternative metatheory of human communication: An Asiacentric vision. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 57-72). New York: Routledge.
Miike, Y. (2009a). “Cherishing the old to know the new”: A bibliography of Asian communication studies. China Media Research, 5(1), 95-103.
Miike, Y. (2009b). “Harmony without uniformity”: An Asiacentric worldview and its communicative implications. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (12th ed., pp. 36-48). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Miike, Y. (Ed.). (2009c). New frontiers in Asian communication theory [Special issue]. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 1-88.
Miike, Y. (2010). Culture as text and culture as theory: Asiacentricity and its raison d’être in intercultural communication research. In R. T. Halualani & T. K. Nakayama (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of critical intercultural communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Miike, Y. (in press-a). Asiacentricity. In R. L. Jackson (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miike, Y. (in press-b). Enryo-sasshi theory. In R. L. Jackson (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (2006). Perspectives on Asian cultures and communication: An updated bibliography. China Media Research, 2(1), 98-106.
Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (Eds.). (2007). Asian contributions to communication theory [Special issue]. China Media Research, 3(4), 1-109.
Miyahara, A. (2004). Toward theorizing Japanese interpersonal communication competence from a non-Western perspective. In F. E. Jandt (Ed.), Intercultural communication: A global reader (pp. 279-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ngũgĩ, T. (1993). Moving the center: The struggle for cultural freedoms. Oxford, UK: James Currey.
Palencia-Roth, M. (2006). Universalism and transversalism: Dialogue and dialogics in a global perspective. In UNESCO (Ed.), Cultural diversity and transversal values: East-West dialogue on spiritual and secular dynamics (pp. 38-49). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Paredes-Canilao, N. (2006). Decolonizing subjects from the discourse of difference. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 1(1), 6-26.
Rogers, E. M. (1982). The empirical and critical schools of communication research. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 125-144). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Rogers, E. M. (1999). Anatomy of the two subdisciplines of communication study. Human Communication Research, 25(4), 618-631.
Shi-xu. (2008). Towards a Chinese-discourse-studies approach to Cultural China: An epilogue. In D. Wu (Ed.), Discourses of Cultural China in the globalizing age (pp. 243-253). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Shi-xu. (2009). Reconstructing Eastern paradigms of discourse studies. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 29-48.
Starosta, W. J. (2006). Rhetoric and culture: An integrative view. China Media Research, 2(4), 65-74.
Storz, M. L. (1999). Malay and Chinese values underlying the Malaysian business culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(1), 117-131.
Tanno, D. V. (1992). The moral force of knowledge: A case for an emergent view of intercultural communication research. In J. A. Jaksa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd National Communication Ethics Conference (pp. 83-89). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Tanno, D. V. (2008). Ethical implications of the ethnic “text” in multicultural communication studies. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 27-36). New York: Routledge.
Thayer, L. (1997). Pieces: Toward a revisioning of communication/life. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Tu, W. (1992). Core values and the possibility of a fiduciary global community. In K. Tehranian & M. Tehranian (Eds.), Restructuring for world peace: On the threshold of the twenty-first century (pp. 333-345). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Tu, W. (1997). Humanity as embodied love: Exploring filial piety in a global ethical perspective. In L. S. Rouner (Ed.), Is there a human nature? (pp. 172-181). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Tu, W. (2001). The global significance of local knowledge: A new perspective on Confucian humanism. Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies, 1(1), 22-27.
Tu, W. (2007). Dialogue among civilizations: A study of the modern transformation of Confucian humanism (in Korean and in English, S. Na, Trans.). Seoul, South Korea: Chunho Jeon.
Tu, W. (2008). Mutual learning as an agenda for social development. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 329-333). New York: Routledge.
Wallerstein, I. (1997). Eurocentrism and its avatars: The dilemmas of social science. New Left Review, 226, 93-107.
Wallerstein, I. (2006). European universalism: The rhetoric of power. New York: New Press.
Wang, G., & Shen, V. (2000). East, West, communication, and theory: Searching for the meaning of searching for Asian communication theories. Asian Journal of Communication, 10(2), 14-32.
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Xiao, X., & Chen, G.-M. (2009). Communication competence and moral competence: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 61-74.
Yin, J. (2006). Toward a Confucian feminism: A critique of Eurocentric feminist discourse. China Media Research, 2(3), 9-18.
Yin, J. (2009). Negotiating the center: Towards an Asiacentric feminist communication theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 75-88.
【剖析传播学术中的“欧洲中心主义”-亚洲中心性在理论及研究去】相关文章：
学术中的政治与政治中的学术03-18
企业品牌在电影营销中的传播方式研究03-22
整合营销传播中的广告策略研究12-07
刍议绿色营销中成熟的人类中心主义思想03-21
论20世纪欧洲现实主义文学中的女权问题03-02
图书馆学研究中的科学主义03-21
谈数据挖掘在中医学术流派研究中的应用03-19
试论广告传播中的舆论领袖11-21