重写文明史：为何重写，如何重写?(笔谈)

本期笔谈刊载四位海外学者关于“重写文明史”的讨论成果，作者分别为美国科学院院士、哈佛大学教授大卫·达姆罗什（David Damrosch），美国《比较文学评论》主编、宾夕法尼亚州立大学教授托马斯·比比（Thomas O. BeeBee），印度海德拉巴外国语大学教授伊普希塔·茜达（Ipshita Chanda），英国利兹大学教授王斌华。多元的学术背景为相关讨论带来了全球多元视角，体现出通过“重写文明史”超越单一文明史观，在平等、互鉴、对话、包容中弘扬全球文明蕴含的全人类共同价值的学术立场。

总体来说，大卫·达姆罗什和托马斯·比比代表了欧美学者对于“欧洲中心主义”的警觉和反思。在大卫·达姆罗什的《论文明史的书写历史》中，他追溯了在“欧洲中心主义”之外的西方学者关于文明史书写的案例，让我们看到在20世纪下半叶西方世界“后欧洲中心主义”运动的源起和现状。关于“后欧洲中心主义”，达姆罗什认为“‘后’的前缀表明欧洲中心主义仍然存在”，但在文明史书写实践中“不再是对‘西方文明本质论’不加反思的展现”。同时，他也提出“单数文明、复数文明、文化？”的问题，认为即使“文明的概念被复数化，它往往偏向持久的延续性，通常以一些大国为中心”，因此认为“谈论单个和区域的‘文化’可能比笼统的‘文明’更好”。托马斯·比比的《世界史的重写：从世界文学史书写谈起》，则通过对西方学者关于世界文学史写作实践的回溯和反思，探讨文明、历史与“世界文学”的深层关联。他认为“文明”这一概念“既可以指文化成就的总和，又可以指贯穿各文化领域的某种本质特征”，这两层意义上的文明内涵都见于18世纪的英语材料，与“文学”一词的兴起相吻合，因此通过“文学史”反思“文明史”是可行且必需的路径。在对19世纪和21世纪的四部文学史著的评析中，我们能够看到文明史如何影响到世界文学的内容呈现和秩序建构。

伊普希塔·茜达的《多元伦理主义下重写文学史何以可能？》表现出印度学者对于“重写文明史”的震撼和理解。在文章的篇首，茜达就表达了她的“震惊”：“没有一部世界史或文明史是用梵语、巴利语或任何一种印度语写成的，而这些语言都为印度地域政治空间中宪法认可的现代语言的形成做出了贡献”。这既是一种事实，也体现出印度对于历史、文明和世界理解的传统：“世界是一个由人际关系构成的世界，一个相互联系的人文世界，而不是一个地理或地缘政治的范畴”。因此，她开明宗义地陈述关于“重写文明史”的“印度观点”：“要以一种关系性的而非确定性的观点来看待我们共有的这一世界”。

王斌华是英国利兹大学的华人教授，这种跨国身份让他更关注文明交流和互鉴中“文化翻译”的重要作用。在《文明互鉴中文化翻译的关键作用》中，他回溯了鸠摩罗什、玄奘及林语堂等翻译家的文化翻译活动对于中华文化自身繁荣和世界传播的重要作用，并就文明互鉴之要义、途径和践行者等问题提出了自己的见解，认为文明互鉴和国际交流意识、专业翻译人才的缺乏，是中国学术“失语”和“失声”的重要原因。

四位海外学者的讨论再一次证明了“重写文明史”问题的重要性和复杂性：首先，身处“欧洲中心主义”漩涡的西方学者已经开始意识到建构多元文明观的重要性和迫切性，他们关于世界文明史的最新思考和书写实践，值得中国学界关注。其次，在世界多元文化背景下，不同地区对于“世界”“文明”和“历史”的认知存在差异，如何让多元文化资源融入“重新文明史”讨论和实践，也是一个需要持续挖掘的话题。最后，就中国学术解决“失语”和“失声”的问题来说，无论在学术思想还是在具体措施上，都需要有充分的思考、实际的举措和切实的学术实践。

Taxation serves as the principal avenue through which the state extracts revenue, while also standing as a pivotal nexus in the interaction between the state and society. It reflects the state's intervention in economic and societal activities, functioning as an assurance for the attainment of efficient governance within the modern state. Therefore, taxation is regarded as an indicator of a modern state's capability to extract resources. The digitization of both the economy and society has bestowed new political and economic significance upon taxation. As a result, the concept of digital taxation has risen to prominence as an important topic within the broader transformation of the global tax system. The growing digitization of economic activities brings about a separation between the location where multinational enterprises are registered and where they truly conduct their economic operations. This separation renders the traditional international tax system incapable of adapting to the emerging global profit-sharing mechanism.

In response to the challenge, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has put forth the concept of "significant economic presence" as the primary criterion for assessing the tax liability of multinational corporations in host countries. This approach recognizes that physical presence is no longer a prerequisite for the substantial involvement of multinational digital enterprises in the economic activities in host countries. Subsequently, several European countries initiated the imposition of a digital services tax, which levies a direct tax on the profit income generated from the digital economy activities of multinational enterprises. This article points out that differences in digital tax practices among countries reflect their respective roles in the global digital economy industry chain, rather than resource extraction capability. To be concrete, being market country within the digital economy chain is a necessary condition for the imposition of digital taxes, and digital tax practices are no longer predicated on revenue extraction capacity. Meanwhile, as active promoters of digital tax practices, market countries may differ in their taxing logics due to variations in resource extraction capacity, which stems from the fact that the structural changes brought about by the digitalization present distinct challenges for countries with varying levels of resource extraction capacity. In market countries characterized by limited extraction capacities, where the state has long had a low level of dependence on society, digital transformation reinforces the reverse domination of state authority by social forces, driving the state to respond to the governance challenges posed by the erosion of government authority through taxing the digital economy. In market countries with strong extraction capacities, on the other hand, the digital transformation of their economies may lead to the loss of their dominant position in the traditional industrial chain, as well as the loss of discursive and decision-making leadership in global digital governance. This could result in digital taxes becoming a means of seeking strategic autonomy and balancing interests in new structural relationships. To sum up, modern states see digital taxes as a means to address the loss of their authority in both domestic and global governance systems. The digital tax practice carries political economy connotations that extend beyond resource extraction. In the case of China, as an increasing number of local digital enterprises enter overseas markets, a comprehensive understanding of its role as a producer in the global digital economy industry chain becomes crucial. This understanding will enable China to effectively manage the spillover effects brought about by the digital tax policies of various countries.