自上世紀二○年代始，中國學界有關十六世紀儒學思想研究進入了一個新階段，近代西方的一些學術概念作為問題的重構方式及其分析模式被大膽採用，譬如「近代」或「近世」概念之移植，便是其中的標誌之一。相形之下，戰後日本在「反省近代」的社會思潮這一背景當中，更有不少中國學術研究專家將「近世」概念作為觀照中國的分析座標，島田虔次便是其中的代表人物之一。他在考察十六世紀中國儒學的思想時，將問題意識集中在：「中國的近世性與近世的中國性」上。亦即：具有「中國」之特殊意涵的「近世性」如何與作為「世界」一般的「近世性」比照合觀？他認為在這一問題意識的觀照之下，可以發現和挖掘在西方進入中國之前，中國本土思想所蘊涵的「近代精神」。八○年代後，溝口雄三以「前近代」作為考察中國近世思想的一個基本預設，在方法論上反對套用西方的觀念分析，在歷史敘述上，則在「前近代」這一分析框架之內，嘗試找出對形成中國近代思想之特質具有決定性因素的某些思想資源。溝口與島田雖在「近代」概念的設定上存在分歧，但在總的方向上，兩者的努力目標卻有一致性：即從十六世紀儒學思想的推演進程中追尋近代的思想淵源。綜觀日本學界近五十年有關中國近世思想的研究歷史，至少給吾人有二點啟發：一、當代西方的中國學界在近代中國的研究領域，經歷了由「西方中心論」到「中國中心論」再到「公共領域」等分析模式的不斷轉換，而日本的中國學界卻在西方與非西方的分析模式中，固執地尋找著一條獨自的研究路徑並構成了自己獨特的問題意識，以一種特有的心情感受及歷史觀念來觀照和解釋中國。二、在中國本土之外的中國研究，日本學者所作出的努力和貢獻對我們來說，足以提供一個互補的分析視野。吾人在對本土的思想和歷史抱有關懷之同時，應思考如何以一種開放的心態將「他者」的立場融入自己的視野，這不僅是應有的解釋態度，其本身也應當是一種解釋方法。

Since the 1920's, studies of sixteenth-century Confucianism have moved on to a new stage in China. Scholars started to use modern western concepts to reframe discussions and remodel interpretations. For example, one of the most significant adoptions is the deploy of the concept of “modern times” and “modern world.” In comparison, a larger number of the Postwar generation of Japanese Sinologists, influenced by the trend of “introspecting modern times,” also use the concept of “modern-world” as the frame of analyses. Kenji Shimada, one of the postwar generation scholars, pivoted his discussion on the dialectics between “Modernity in China and China in the modern world.” In other words, how do we compare and contrast modernity of Chinese characteristics with modernity as a universal concept? With this comparison and contrast, Kenji Shimada discovered the “modern spirit” in China even before the influence of western thoughts. After the eighties, Yūzō Mizouguchi used the concept of “pre-modern times” as a basic parameter in his study of modern Chinese thoughts. In terms of methodology, he refused to apply Western concepts indiscriminately. And in terms of historical narrative, with the analytical frame of “pre-modern times,” he tried to find out key factors which help to shape modern Chinese thoughts. Although their concepts of “modern times” differed, Yūzō Mizouguchi and Kenji Shimada have worked toward the same goal in general: to search roots of modern thoughts through studies of the sixteenth-century Confucianism in China. A comprehensive survey of Japanese Sinologist studies in the past fifty years inspires us in at least two aspects: a). Western Sinology, in the area of Modern Chinese Studies, has gone through three paradigm shifts: from “Western Centrism” to “China Centrism” to “Public Domain,” while Japanese Sinologists, wavering between Western and non-Western paradigms, insist on an unique approach and have formed new perspectives. b). As Chinese Studies out of the native land, Japanese Sinology provides us with new visions and perspectives complementary to ours.