修昔底德陷阱是現實主義者的建構：從社會建構論觀點詮釋《伯羅奔尼撒戰爭史》

Abstract

近年來，修昔底德陷阱成為觀察國際政治的重要理論視角。這一詞彙由Graham Allison提出，旨在描述崛起國與守成國間必然發生衝突的既定模式。儘管此概念聲稱源自撰寫《伯羅奔尼撒戰爭史》的偉大史學家、「現實主義之父」修昔底德，但實際上卻是對修昔底德著作以偏概全的詮釋。 本文主張「修昔底德陷阱」是現實主義者的建構，且與其說他是現實主義者，他反而更像建構主義者。為證明此論點，本文針對《伯羅奔尼撒戰爭史》中的各個章節進行深入分析，藉社會建構論的理論框架，探索修昔底德對其中關鍵事件的論述。 分析後本研究得到兩項關鍵研究發現。首先，許多現實主義者用來支持其理論，例如權力轉移或現實政治的段落，實際上可以有不同的詮釋。古希臘城邦彼此的互動其實有權力以外的考量。再者，透過文本分析，我們也得以認識目前社會建構論的限制與潛力，例如無政府文化轉變的過程，以及語言扮演的角色。

Thucydides’ Trap has become a popular theoretical focal point for international politics. The term, coined by Graham Allison, captures the recurring pattern of inevitable conflicts between the rising power and ruling power. While such an idea is attributed to Thucydides, the great historian who wrote down History of the Peloponnesian War and the “Father of Realism”, it was in fact a wishful interpretation of Thucydides’ work. This thesis claims that “Thucydides’ Trap” is actually what realists make of it, and Thucydides himself was in face a constructivist instead of a realist. To support this argument, the thesis goes through each chapter of History of the Peloponnesian War, and offers in-depth analyses of the narrative of key events through the theoretical framework of social constructivism. Two key results are discovered. First, many paragraphs that realists used to support their ideas such as power transition and realpolitik can actually be interpreted differently. Ancient Greeks actually had other calculations beyond power when dealing with each other. Second, the textual analyses also allow us to understand the limitation and potential of social constructivism, including the transformation of the cultures of anarchy as well as the function of languages.