當前對於中國威脅論的探討多以普遍主義的角度出發，使得「中國威脅」對於任何國家而言，彷彿都是具有普遍意義的存在。本文目的希望對此進行審視，透過釐清美國與日本知識界的威脅論述，反省普遍主義的絕對性。因此，本文先概述並反思美國知識界在普遍主義脈絡下所探討的「中國威脅論」，之後，則從日本近代的歷史發展出發，瞭解其知識界所提出威脅論述的歷史脈絡以及負面情感。最後提出美國知識界的威脅論是以主權為基礎，旨在維護美國霸權地位以及西方文明價值的普遍性與絕對性。日本知識界則以關係為威脅論述的內涵，中國崛起對其造成的主要挑戰集中於自我意識、國家認同與身份定位等層面。因此，當前看似中立客觀的普遍中國威脅論，其實是依據不同社群的需要而被提出，指涉了全然不同的意義與情感狀態。 The discussion of “China Threat” nowadays is largely based on universalism.However, different negative emotions will lead to diverse contexts of China threat, which questions the authority of universalism. The paper begins with American intellectuals’ discussion of China threat, which based on universalism; then to examine the understanding of threat, which rooted in the context of history, from Japanese intellectuals’ side. By comparing the American and the Japanese cultural strategies, we can realize that the American intellectuals focus on the material strength of China, and emphasize the importance of maintaining the superpower status of the U.S. and the universality of the western culture. Yet, the intellectuals of Japan stress the relations between China and Japan, and they worry about the rising China will threaten their national identity and the location of Japan in the world. Therefore, we can find out that there is no objective and neutral China threat. Different countries will construct different China threats according to their needs, for this reason, universalism is not universal.