Recent “global history” takes human social life as its point of departure, as though the bloody struggle for world supremacy within European civilization had already produced a victor, and the age of a globalized “cosmopolitan” society envisioned by liberal political actors were about to arrive. Even if it has not arrived, the “global history” inaugurated by Schmitt’s The Nomos of the Earth remains state-centered while at the same time transcending “Eurocentrism.” Its theoretical premise, by contrast, is that the deadly struggle among the great powers has not ended: it has merely spread beyond Europe to encompass the globe.
晚近的“全球史”以人类社会生活为本位，似乎欧洲文明内部争夺世界支配权的血腥厮杀已经决出胜负，自由主义政治人所憧憬的全球化“世界公民”社会时代即将来临。即便没有来临，施米特的《大地的法》所开创的“全球史”研究仍然以国家为本位，同时又超逾了“欧洲中心主义”，其学理依据反倒是：大国间的厮杀并没有终结，不过是越出欧洲范围扩展到全球而已。
When confronted with two concepts of “global history” informed by distinctly different sets of questions, choosing to align ourselves with a “global history” centered on human social life means that we believe the globalized age of a “cosmopolitan” society really will arrive. If this is not the case, if the ideal of a “cosmopolitan” society that has retained its appeal from the eighteenth century to the present may be a utopia, and if the deadly struggles among states remain frequent and brutal, then devoting our historical research and teaching to instilling a liberal-democratic “cosmopolitan” consciousness in the younger generation will cause our descendants to forget that the land beneath their feet still stands within a world-historical moment of globalized, state-centered conflict.
当面对问题意识明显不同的两种“全球史”概念时，选择与以人类社会生活为本位的“全球史”接轨便意味着，我们相信“世界公民”社会的全球化时代真的会来临。如果情形并非如此，如果18世纪以来迄今不衰的“世界公民”社会理念也许是一种乌托邦，如果国家间的厮杀依然频繁而且惨烈，那么，我们的史学研究和教学致力于给年轻一代灌输自由民主的“世界公民”意识，其结果便是让我们的后代忘记自己脚下的土地仍然置身于以国家为本位的全球化冲突的世界历史时刻。