本文的問題意識具有雙重性，一方面是面對近代歐洲對中國或求方印象片面的曲解而所形成的采方主義的文化體制，在東方繼續傳衍放製;另一方面，愛德華﹒薩依德(EdwardW. Said)解構與西方帝國主義重蠱的采方主義的十五年後， 美國日本史學者丈代芬﹒田中(StefanTanaka)以薩依德的研究手法寫作了日本 的東方(Japan'sOrient)中國史學工作者，是否能夠依樣畫葫蘆來寫一部中國的 采方(China'sOrient)呢? 面對多重交雜互為主容體的歷史經驗，比較研究似乎是可行的兼融並包的寫作形式，但方法論上需要與以往的文學比較模式或薩依德的研究手法拉距，我從錢先生的「比較分析措詞」批判切入東方主義的種族中心論述，分析上述問題意識的雙重性所在，以及超越以往比較研究典範的必要性，而超越的可能性在於錢先生所指出的「多元中心的相互主觀世界J'這種新的「相互主體性」的倫理對待方式之具體實踐，可尋自錢先生的「出入其文化」的學街道德作業一一解稿主客宰申IJ系統性描述語言與從傳統思想資源泉開發創造新語言，進而莫立後現代已式「和而不同」或「批判性混合」的理論基礎。

This paper explores a doubling problematic，that is， on the one hand， the epistemolgical dominance of subject over object as embedded :inthe Orientalist representation of the Orient，\" was reproduced in Japan and China in a form of cultural imperialism; on the other hand， as a student of Chinese history in order to critique and correct such phenomenon， is it sufficiently adequate to write a China's Orient as same as Stefan Tanaka's Japan's Orient by appropriating Edward Said's decolonizing decolonizing approach to Eur· ocentrism in the institution of Orientalism? Facing such multi· layered and polyphonic historical experiences， a comparative approach is a feasible form of historical writing to encapsulate fluid interaction of plural consciousnesses which none of them will be fully reduced as a mere object. In order to accomplish this feasibility， we have to reconceptualize comparativism as it was employed by Said and other comparative literature scholars. Starting Edward T. Chien's critique of comparative rhetoric" in the West and its discursive connection to Orientalist Eurocentrism， I locate the aforementioned doubling problematic， and the necessity of transcending ex·paradigmatic comparativism. Furthermore， I evoke Chien's multi-centered world of inter-subjectivity" for an alternative methodology. As Chien's long-standing efforts and scholarship of“cross-cultural studies" exemplified in his deconstructionist critique of bilateral Eurocentrism and Sino-centrism and his search for creating new language from traditional cultural resources， one can incorporate them as a theoretical basis of ethics for a formation of post·modern critical syncretism to escape the predicament of the colonizer / colonized dichotomy.