- 相關推薦
剖析傳播學術中的“歐洲中心主義”-亞洲中心性在理論及研究去
三池賢孝 J. Z. 愛門森
關鍵詞： 學術依賴 非洲中心性 亞洲中心性 傳播理論 文化特定性 去西方化 多樣性 歐洲中心主義 人性 橫截性
[摘要]：本文對歐洲中心的傳播知識結構加以質疑，提出亞洲傳播研究中亞洲中心性的合理性。文章的第一部分對人性、文化特定性和傳播的本質及其交叉加以重新闡釋；第二部分接著論述了歐洲中心主義作為意識形態的“籠統化”（totalization）和“輕視化”（trivialization）；第三部分對“亞洲中心性”的元理論概念加以闡明，證明其理論必要性。本文最后提出亞洲中心性對傳播學術進行“去西方化”的五條途徑。它們是：（1）形成與亞洲傳播討論相應的理論認識；（2）關注于亞洲傳播經驗的多樣性和復雜性；（3）省察地構建及批判地改進亞洲傳播的討論；（4）對“如何在亞洲文化特定性中表達和理解人性的普遍特征”進行理論探討；（5）對理論研究中的歐洲中心傾向加以批評，并且幫助亞洲研究者克服學術依賴。
把許多不同的原生紐帶混為一談，或是把它們統統歸入民族主義/地方主義的范疇中，這樣的做法很常見，卻把我們引入歧途，非常危險……種族、性別、語言（母語）、祖籍（故土）、階層和宗教信仰都是我們作為“人”最基本的組成部分。它們告訴我們自己是誰，并且為我們提供必要的資源、讓我們成為自己選擇成為的樣子。它們各自表達了人性的一個基本方面。
——杜維明（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：文化遺產是力量之源
人性深植于人類最原生的紐帶中；脫離原生紐帶，人類的日常存在都將失去意義。正是這種原生的紐帶讓我們成為獨一無二的、實在的人類；因此，我們有必要從“表達（expression）的來源”和“壓制（oppression）的來源”這兩個角度對其進行反思和重鑄。這正是杜維明（2007）一直希望在當今這個全球化和本土化趨勢并存的年代大力推崇儒家的智慧。用他自己的話來說，“原生紐帶并不只是消極地限制我們，只有順應它們，認識到它們同時也是力量源泉， 我們才能夠在積極參與全球化中獲益，因為全球趨勢其實是以根植于本土為基礎的”（P. 143）。我們不應該舍棄這種原始紐帶，而應該將之作為文化遺產而加以轉化。我們的命運可能會受到它們的控制，但是“我們也擁有對其全部或是其中一部分加以超越、解構和重建的自由”（Tu，1997，p. 179）。不過，在目前的后主義、后解構主義、甚至后殖民主義思潮中，“原生紐帶”和“文化特定性”只是被看作影響人們走向社會公平和全球倫理的障礙。
本文認為，如果非西方的傳播研究者們忽視了杜維明的看法，不能從非西方的文化特定性出發對傳播過程及傳播原理加以，那么非西方的傳播學術就失去了存在的意義。對亞洲傳播進行亞洲中心的研究對于亞洲人的共性特征來說是必不可少的，因為亞洲人一直基于亞洲文化特點進行交流活動。但這一點被忽視了。本文希望通過質疑“非西方學術世界中的歐洲中心知識結構”、詳述亞洲中心性在對傳播研究進行“去西方化”過程中的作用，從而證實以上論點。本文的第一部分對人性、文化特定性和傳播的本質及其交集加以重新闡釋；第二部分對歐洲中心主義作為“籠統化”（totalization）/“輕視化”（trivialization）思想方式的身份進行了定義，同時解釋了“為什么歐洲中心的知識帝國主義是世界傳播學術的障礙”；第三部分對“亞洲中心性”的元理論概念加以闡明，證明其理論必要性。本文最后提出亞洲中心性對傳播研究進行“去西方化”的五條途徑。
人性、文化特定性和傳播
Lee Thayer（1997）說得好，傳播是“我們獲得人性的過程——不管人性到底是什么、到底怎么樣”（p. 207）。在他看來，說話和理解的方式——即“傳播”——就是做人的方式。確實，Chen和Miike（2008）曾假設，傳播與我們做人的深層感覺密不可分。傳播構建了我們在人際關系中的自我概念、我們在社會中的地位和作用、我們的價值觀和道德觀、我們對于過去的記憶、以及我們對于未來的展望；而與此同時，所有這些也構建了傳播。正因為如此，我們不能輕易地改變自己的傳播方式和傳播行為。如果我們認真地看待這個問題的話，也許，沒有什么比傳播更難研究、更難提高了。
對人類傳播進行理論總結就是對人性得以表達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體會。因此可以說，傳播是人性的一種文化特定性表達。比如說，大多數基本情感（比方在這里用說“love”）也是以特定的語言方式、在特定的社會文化語境中進行表達的，伴隨著特定的經驗累積。Goonasekera和Kuo（2000）提出，亞洲傳播專家們應該探討“探究意義的普遍性過程如何在亞洲的文化環境中進行”。他們說：
所有人都以一定的符號/意義為基礎進行傳播。所有人類社會都以一定的語言進行傳播。人類是尋找意義、創造意義和闡釋意義的生物。意義的闡釋和協商是普遍存在于所有人類社會的，同時也對于人類傳播活動具有中心性……意義在極大程度上受到文化的定義也鵲的傳播視角、傳播態度和傳播行為。我們需要的“傳播”語言得少一些“自由的個人的”（agentic）、多一些“社群性”（communal）[6]，少一些“陽”、多一些“陰”，少一些“影響”和“勸說”、多一些“共鳴”與“和諧”，少一些“自說自話”、多一些“對話交流�！保╬. 100）
尾聲：人性、多樣性和橫截性
Hwa Yol Jung（1995，2004，2006，2009）曾詳細闡明“橫截性”（transversality）這一新概念，將之視為認識知識和倫理的一種全球方法。Calvin O. Schrag對這種傳播理念進行了闡發，從而用以解決諸如“相同與相異”、“統一與多樣”、“現代與后現代”等二元問題。與已經得以廣泛使用的“普遍性”（universality）概念不同，“橫截性”（transversality）說的是與“跨越”和“相交”有關的問題；它原本是一個幾何學概念，是指一條直線與兩條及兩條以上的直線相交，或與一組直線相交。作為跨文化傳播的一種新思路，“橫截性”（transversality）是指“跨越不同文化邊界的真理相交地帶：這是以跨文化方式思考真理的一種方法”（Jung，1995，p. 15）。因此，實現橫截統一是“傳播的一種成就，因為它是經歷了多種不同的觀點、視角、信仰體系和地域因素的結果”（Jung，2009，p. 29）。“橫截性”的境界就是Chen（2006）所謂“道”的狀態，“對真理進行民族中心主義式的壟斷性思考應該停止，人性可以在不同文化的聚集體中繁衍不絕”（p. 306）。
在對人性、多樣性和傳播進行理論研究時，橫截性觀點有兩個重要的意義。第一，“應該克服或者說超越打著普遍性名頭的歐洲經典真理（European cannon of truth. Jung，2004，p. 16）。從非洲中心的角度看，Asante（2006）嚴肅地指出“假定……歷史起源于歐洲，或者認為只有寫歐洲的事情才算寫歷史，都是對人類學術的大不敬。當‘特定’轉變為‘絕對’，我們不可避免地站在了沖突的風口浪尖”（p. 146）。雖然西方真理常常被看作具有“絕對性”和“普遍性”，橫截觀點要求傳播學者和研究者們仔細考察西方真理的文化特性，并且超越有關普遍真理的這種歐洲中心建構。用Wallerstein（2006）的話來說，應該從“歐洲的普遍主義”轉向“普遍的普遍主義”。
第二，與普遍性不同，“橫截性”為同時研究探討人類共性和多樣性創造了可能。Palencia-Roth（2006）所言極是，與別的直線橫截相交的直線本身并不因相交直線而改變軌跡：“用價值論的話來說，橫截價值觀是跨域兩種或者更多種文化的價值觀，對于不同文化來說具有相通的地方，但是又并不會轉化成普遍性的價值觀。一種文化橫截性要想保持其橫截特征，就必須保持其特定之處”（p. 38）。因此，每種文化都在維持自身歷史傳統之特定存在的同時，又在不同的時空下與其他文化相交匯。傳播研究者們需要對人類共性與多樣性的這種交匯加以解釋和描繪，從而對本土群體和全球社會中的傳播與關系加以思考。橫截性觀點要求人們既要研究特定性中的人類共性、也要研究人類共性中的特定性（Miike，2007b，2008c）。
毫無疑問，人性、多樣性和橫截性將是未來全球傳播學術的關鍵。傳播研究的任何領域都無法拒絕人類共性和文化多樣性，都必須將自身定位于這二者之間。亞洲中心的研究方法將和非洲中心及其他中心的研究方法一道，產生出具有橫截性特點的知識，引領我們對人性、多樣性和傳播獲得更為細致的領悟。亞洲中心性將在解構普遍真理、重建橫截現實方面有所作為；本文即意在對亞洲中心性的這種正在出現和正在發展中的作用加以重申和展望。本文再次論述了人性、文化特定性及傳播之間無法分割的聯系，闡明亞洲中心性的元理論概念及其理論必要性，同時列出了亞洲傳播的亞洲中心性研究對現有理論研究進行“去西方化”的五條途徑。
[注釋]
[1]譯者注: 深度描寫（thick description）是文化人類學的概念，這個概念是由Clifford Geertz 提出的（見Geertz 的著作 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books, 1973）深度描寫是指要以一個文化本身成員的視角來研究描述這個文化。與之相反，淺度描寫（thin description）是傳統上人類學者以自己（外來人）的視角去研究一個文化。
[2]譯者注：思想性質的范式是關于思想的性質和質量的討論。就是說Asante討論的并不是什么非洲思想本身，而是何謂從非洲人民文化為視角的思想。
[3]譯者注：在韓語中，nunchi是“體會、感知”的意思，ga是“是”的意思，bbarda是“很快”的意思，eupda是“沒有”的意思。因此，“nunchi ga bbarda”的意思接近于“很快心領神會”；而“nunchi ga eupda”接近于“沒有領會”。其實還有“nunchi ga idda”的表達，其中“idda”是“有”的意思，和“eupda”（沒有）相對。因此，“nunchi ga idda”接近于“能夠心領神會，心有靈犀”之意。
[4]譯者注：元討論（metadiscourse），或者更貼切地譯為后討論，超討論，指的是對關于某現象討論的討論。
[5]譯者注：東方主義（Orientalism）是Edward W. Said提出的概念，是指一種始于歐洲殖民時期的思想，它將中東及遠東地區視為西方的對立面，是一個神秘，怪誕，色情，缺乏人性，毫無理性的世界（見Edward W. Said 的Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, New York: Vintage Books, 1978）這種思想一直延續至今，在歐美的社會及學術界中依然盛行。
[6]譯者注：對于“agentic”和“communal”這一組概念，國內的翻譯并不統一。此處參照鄒德強等著《功能性價值和象征性價值對品牌忠誠的影響：性別差異和品牌差異的調節作用》一文中對這兩個詞的譯法。見《南開管理評論》2007 年10 卷，第3 期第4-12 頁。
[]
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.
【剖析傳播學術中的“歐洲中心主義”-亞洲中心性在理論及研究去】相關文章：
學術中的政治與政治中的學術03-18
企業品牌在電影營銷中的傳播方式研究03-22
整合營銷傳播中的廣告策略研究12-07
芻議綠色營銷中成熟的人類中心主義思想03-21
論20世紀歐洲現實主義文學中的女權問題03-02
圖書館學研究中的科學主義03-21
談數據挖掘在中醫學術流派研究中的應用03-19
試論廣告傳播中的輿論領袖11-21