2026年4月2日至3日，德国汉学家大会在世界汉学中心举办。中方学术召集人、北京语言大学世界汉学中心主任徐宝锋教授以“作为一种文明形态的汉学”为题发表了主旨演讲，引起与会者的广泛共鸣，并引发全球汉学界深入讨论。

　　近日，著名汉学家，世界汉学家理事会军事专委会成员，阿根廷国际关系理事会亚洲事务委员会（CARI）主席马豪恩（Jorge Malena）来文回应。

以下是回应全文：

The proposal to conceive Sinology not as a conventional academic discipline but as a “form of civilization” is an ambitious and intellectually stimulating intervention. Its main merit lies in challenging the traditional framework that reduces Sinology to China studies, philology, or a branch of the humanities. From the epistemology of the Social Sciences, disciplines are historical and institutional constructions. It is therefore legitimate to reconsider whether certain fields of knowledge transcend classical disciplinary boundaries.

The claim that Sinology possesses the attributes of wholeness, continuity, and relational exchange resonates with holistic approaches found in thinkers such as Fernand Braudel or Norbert Elias, who understood civilizations as long-term, structured, and dynamic historical processes. From this perspective, Sinology would not merely be the study of China, but also a historical space of intellectual mediation between different cultural worlds.

However, from a critical standpoint, the assertion that Sinology constitutes an “independent civilization” raises conceptual difficulties. In the Social Sciences, a civilization usually refers to relatively autonomous historical complexes of institutions, values, material practices, and symbolic systems. Sinology, by contrast, is better described as a transnational field of knowledge production about Chinese civilization and its global interactions. In other words, rather than being a civilization in itself, it is more accurately understood as an intellectual infrastructure of civilizational dialogue.

The proposal to replace the disciplinary paradigm with a civilizational one also requires caution. While such a shift may enrich research by integrating history, politics, culture, economics, and philosophy, it also risks treating as fixed entities broad and heterogeneous entities such as “China,” “the West,” or “civilization,” thereby obscuring internal conflicts, historical change, and social diversity.

To conclude, rather than an autonomous civilization, Sinology may be better understood as a global reflexive practice situated between civilizations, whose growing international significance reflects China’s contemporary centrality in the world system.

　　参考译文：将汉学不视为一门传统学科，而视作一种“文明形态”，这一构想既格局宏大，又富有思想启发。其核心价值在于，它挑战了将汉学窄化为中国研究、语文学或人文学科一个分支的传统框架。从社会科学的认识论来看，学科本就是历史与制度的构造物。因此，重新审视某些知识领域是否已超越经典的学科边界，是完全合理的。

　　该主张认为汉学具备整体性、延续性和关系性交流的特质，这与费尔南·布罗代尔或诺伯特·埃利亚斯等思想家所倡导的整体史观不谋而合——他们将文明理解为长时段、有结构且充满动态变化的历史进程。从这一视角看，汉学就不仅是对中国的研究，更是一个在不同文化世界之间进行思想对话的历史空间。

　　然而，从批判的角度来看，断言汉学构成一种“独立文明”，在概念上会遇到困难。在社会科学中，文明通常指由制度、价值观念、物质实践和象征体系构成的、相对自主的历史复合体。相比之下，汉学更恰当地说，应被描述为一个关于中华文明及其全球互动的跨国知识生产场域。换言之，它本身并非文明，而更准确的理解是，它是文明对话的一种知识基础架构。

　　将学科范式替换为文明范式的提议，也需谨慎对待。虽然这种转变有可能整合历史、政治、文化、经济与哲学，从而丰富研究，但也存在风险，可能将“中国”“西方”或“文明”这类宽广而混杂的实体视为固定不变之物，从而遮蔽其内部的冲突、历史变迁和社会多样性。

　　总而言之，与其将汉学理解为一种自足的文明，不如将其视为位于不同文明之间的一种全球性反思实践，其日益增长的国际意义，正反映了当代中国在世界体系中的中心地位。

　　马豪恩（Jorge Eduardo Malena），阿根廷知名中国问题专家，阿根廷国际关系理事会亚洲事务委员会主席，阿根廷天主教大学教授，中国外交学院客座教授，长期关注和研究中国问题，2013年凭借《中国：大国建设》一书获得“第七届中华图书特殊贡献奖”。他曾在阿根廷国内外主流杂志上发表过80余篇有关中国的论文，对扩大中国在当地影响、促进两国人民之间的相互理解和友谊发挥了积极作用。