“中国模式”逐渐成为世界瞩目的焦点，学界有关“中国模式”的内涵，“中国模式”是否具有普适性，“中国模式”的未来走向何方等争议却从未止息。通过重新整理和归纳海外“中国模式”研究的最新成果，可以发现众多海外“中国模式”研究中，威权主义叙事被广泛应用。在这种研究范式中，中国属于威权主义国家，“中国模式”等同于一类冠以各种修饰前缀的威权主义概念几近成为海外“中国模式”研究的学术默认。探究“中国模式”研究中威权主义范式的生成机理，需要回归到思想史的学术语境中，重新考察威权主义概念的根源与演变。源于政治发展理论和经典转型范式理论的局限性，威权主义研究范式不可避免地产生了理论和现实的脱节，导致其不仅不能有效解读“中国模式”，并且还体现出西方对政治发展和民主理论话语霸权。因此有必要厘清催生这一研究范式的政治语境与学脉线索，并在批判性视角中解构威权主义概念。由于海外学界始终处于“他者”视角，导致大部分研究对于“中国模式”的本土性及其价值往往缺乏深刻的洞见和积极的评价，即便在一些西方学者对“中国模式”的称赞中，也仍然包含着强烈的意识形态偏见。对于国内学界而言，相关研究对此类威权主义研究范式的借鉴显然是不可取的。处于本土文化自觉、学术自觉、致用自觉日益觉醒阶段的本土学界，有必要慎重对待海外“中国模式”研究中的威权主义研究范式，破除“中国模式”问题研究中“事事求证于西方”的迷信，进而为唤醒中国学界相关研究的本土自觉提供启示。

As the China Model has become the focus of the world, its connotation, whetherit is universal or not, and its future have been examined in domestic and abroad studies.Through summarizing the latest fruits of overseas China Model research, it is clear thatauthoritarianism is widely used. China is an authoritarian country, and the China Modelis equivalent to authoritarian concepts with various modified prefixes, have been anacademic default for overseas China Model research.To explore the generating mechanism of the authoritarian paradigm in theseresearches, it is necessary to concentrate on the academic history and re-examine theorigin of authoritarianism. Originating from the limitations of political developmenttheory and transition paradigm, the authoritarian research paradigm inevitably producesa disconnect between theory and reality, which not only fails to effectively interpret theChina Model, but also reflects the West’s commitment to political development anddemocracy. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the political context and academic cluesthat gave birth to this research paradigm, and to deconstruct the concept ofauthoritarianism from a critical perspective.Due to the fact that overseas researchers are always in the perspective of the"others", their studies are lack of deep insights and positive comments on the value ofthe China Model. Even in the praise from some Western scholars, it still contains strongideological prejudice. For domestic academic circles, it is obviously undesirable todraw on this kind of authoritarian research paradigm. The local academic community,which is in the stage of awakening local cultural consciousness, academicconsciousness, and application consciousness, needs to be cautious of the authoritarianresearch paradigm in overseas China Model studies. Breaking the superstition of“seeking every proof from the West empiric” will provide enlightenment for awakeningthe local academic consciousness.