蠻、夷、戎、狄等稱謂可以是具體專指，亦可以是類别泛稱，但是中文没有一個字或詞涵蓋所有外族，同時貫撤始終地包羅“外來”與“野蠻”的語意。論者多謂《左傳》以及其他載籍中“我者”與“他者”的分際是文化習俗而非種族。但是文化習俗差異如何精準地界定，並不容易。本文探究三個問題。(1) 華夷之“辯”如何界定華夷之辨？戰事方式、土地運用、禮制儀節是否爲決定因素？楚、吳形象，爲何游移於“華化”與“夷化”之間？魯與“東夷”的關係，顯示“他者”的描摹與自我定位不可分割。同源近俗似乎正是衍生突顯差異的原動力。(2) 文化聯繫的存在或否定，往往建基於歷史回顧。承認“戎化”或刻意淡化與周的歷史淵源，可以是抗拒周王之要求、不受其羈縻的方法。相反的，重寫歷史，泯滅“他者”身份，也許是圖霸的途徑。作者分析“有史爲證”的辯論方式，探討華夷同、異的觀點如何藉重塑歷史尋找論據。(3) 貶損蠻、夷、戎、狄的論點往往出現於人物的言説，所以我們應該考慮“他者”屬性道德化背後的修辭框架。辯論的焦點可能是軍事策略、和與戰的選擇、“獻捷”的儀節、周王與盟主的關係等等。《左傳》透過追捕歷史事件的因果關係及歷史人物的動機，超越了簡單化、道德化的華夷之辨程式，呈現了一個複雜而多元的畫面。
There is no fixed categorical term for barbarians in Chinese. Specific groups are identified as “aliens” or “cultural others” through words like Man 蠻, Yi 夷, Rong 戎, and Di 狄, but all four terms can be specific or categorical. It is often said that the us-versus-them formula in Zuozhuan (and early Chinese texts in general) is cultural rather than ethnic, but precise definitions of cultural difference can be elusive. This article focuses on three issues regarding the representation of cultural difference: (1) Who is the barbarian? Can we find the decisive criterion in modes of warfare, relationship to the land, or ritual? Why does the representation of Chu and Wu shifts between idealization and “barbarization”? Lu’s dealings with the eastern Yi domains are especially interesting, since they show how representation of cultural others is inseparable from cultural self-definition. Similarities and shared roots seem to have generated the impetus for emphasizing distinctions. (2) Arguments on cultural connections or lack thereof are often built on historical retrospection. Embracing historical ties with barbarians can be a way to resist Zhou dynasty demands, even as using the ancient past to disclaim the status of cultural other can function to assert hegemonic ambition. The author examines the uses of history to manipulate notions of shared roots and radical difference. (3) Since the negative qualities attributed to barbarians come up in speeches, we need to consider the rhetorical context of moralizing otherness. Whether the issue is debates on military strategy, the choice of war or peace, the etiquette of presenting the spoils of victory, or the relationship between Zhou and the leader of the covenant, we see how attention to particular motives and circumstances driving historical developments results in a complex and nuanced picture that resists simplistic and moralized formulations of cultural identity and cultural difference
