本文題目取材自《莊子》〈秋水篇〉中莊子和惠施的對話。莊子是一個懷疑主義者，而惠施則認為自己是一個理性主義的思想家。兩人都認為自己的立場纔是正確的，不管濠江的儵魚是怎麼想的。 後現代主義以及後殖民主義的思想本質，是希望可以讓各家各派的學說得到平等的對待，或至少讓弱勢的學說、理論或信仰得到應有的重視。不過後現代主義，尤其是後殖民主義的思想，有時也主張應該讓所謂的「他者」起來和主流的思想進行所謂「文化戰爭」，因此這兩派的學說在理論上隱含著一種「以我代彼」或「以彼代我」的危險。 在中國近代史的研究上，很早以來便已經有中國歷史進展是獨特的這樣的觀點，但是強調獨特性會不會正好像後現代主義的思想一樣，把「他者」獨特化起來，以致把人類歷史經驗裏可能的共同性給取消了呢？會不會要中國人只擁抱自己的文化特質，而不斷地與其他文化進行鬥爭呢？ 有些學者強烈主張西方的歷史觀和國家理論不應該拿來解釋中國歷史，更不應該拿來作為近代中國建構一個現代國家的指導方針。他們主張現代化理論不能隨便搬到其他國家或社會，他們又同時強調中國歷史和文化的獨特性，於是結論為中國近代的歷史經驗不是用西方的觀念所能解釋或改造。 後現代主義學者批判西方啟蒙時代締造出來的種種現代價值，宣稱這些價值只是西方的主流價值，接受他們就等於是西化，或者是變成了十八世紀思想的奴隸。推廣言之，現代化等於是西方化、等於接受一些已經不適用的偏頗的西方思想。這個說法不一定不合理，但是它卻讓一些主張中國文化的未來不應該取法西方的人得到了幻想的空間，讓他們在精神上受到了奇怪的鼓舞：認為中國要的是自己發展自己該走的路，而不要或不必大量採用西方的價值，特別是啟蒙時代發展出來的民主、科學的思想，這些東西不適合用來改造中國。這種帶有強烈民族主義色彩的論述，正好和後現代（特別是後殖民）主義的反「啟蒙」思想有相通之處，讓許多人因之主張中國必須起來反對「啟蒙」。在中國這樣的主張大約是開始於八○年代，與後現代的反啟蒙思想大致同時，於是在中國，反啟蒙的想法如虎添翼，蔚然成風。其實這只是一種保守的懼外思想。 前一陣子流行的「亞洲價值」的理論，它雖然是站在文化多元的假設上來發展其論述，但是卻被用來替「他者」掩飾其獨特性的主張，以致幫忙他們繼續採行獨特的政策或文化信念。這種看似後現代的論述，其實是前現代的，只是用了後現代思想的用語以及它價值相對的特色，來抗拒一些人類可以共同接受的價值罷了。 本文討論了當代中、美數位近代史或中國史家的理論，目的不在批評他們，而是希望當代中國人可以早早跳出民族主義的框架，以便對學術的客觀研究有真正的領會和心得，進而利用價值的相對觀點來檢視中國自有的思想，採取合理的（reasonable）、正派的（decent）態度，把它們放在普世的價值系譜或格局裏不斷地檢索，這樣才能對中國的歷史和文化得到真正的、理性的、以及客觀的了解。 後現代或後殖民的理論不應該只是提倡相對性、混淆是非，讓各樣的理論或學說各是其是、各非其非而已。換言之，不應當像莊子及惠施一樣。其實他們兩個人都不知道濠梁下的儵魚究竟快不快樂，只有那魚兒在那裏暗暗地笑著。

The title of this paper is taken from Zhuang-zi, who was an optimistic skeptic, constantly at play with paradoxes. Of them, the most famous is his debate with his friend, Hui Shi, about how a human could know that the minnows were happy, dashing to and fro in the stream under the bridge. The minnows were happy, perhaps, but were more likely laughing at the confidence of the two apparently intelligent thinkers. Both of them believed that they had the answer. The post-modernist would also laugh at the same kind of self-confidence that there is an absolute answer to every question, and that the answer should be at once universal and logical. Whereas the post-modernist position often leads to so-called “culture wars”, its stance is actually one that is inquistive, humble, forward-looking, and democratic. Unfortunately, when such attitudes are taken over to interpret the “other”, the “other” often uses the open attitude to subvert and to seek for hegemony. They do so by way of constructing a new narrative, masquerading it as not merely one of many, but the unique, way to “truth”. Post-colonialist historiography has powerfully demonstrated how this strategy can work. In recent historiography of China, the same tendency has worked to the advantage of the Chinese nationalist historians, an advantage the old argument that “China was different or unique” often was not able to achieve. In short, the old nationalist historiography often used the post-modernist and post-colonialist relativism to seek for prominence, to claim its legitimate position of the “other”, and then as first among the equals. Some Western historians of China are also criticizing the modernist project, proclaiming that the historiography of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with its linear time concept and idea of progress, has not only distorted the understanding of China's past, but also prevented the Chinese from finding value and meaning in their own history. The post-modernist project paradoxically creates a situation that is actually preventing us from seeing the true picture of China's past. But then this after all is what post-modernists want, is this not? The minnows should know better.