道統觀的建立、維護與異端的指認、辯駁，是世界許多學派、宗教共有的現象，儒家也不例外。在二十世紀後半朔的儒學論述中，對道統觀的態度可至少分為三種：一、將道統觀史學化，即以宋明道統觀研究宋明儒學，其後果為道統觀在現代儒學建構中缺席。二、將道統觀現代化，使道統觀在現代儒學建構中的重要地位和功能，和宋明儒學的情形可相比擬。三、提出另類道統觀以取代宋明道統觀，此一新道統觀不至像宋明道統觀那般無比重要，但也取得新的功能，適應現代發展的需求。本文舉出了狄百瑞（Wm. T. de Bary）、John B. Henderson、牟宗三、錢穆、杜維明等學者，做為前述三種論述之代表，詳細討論他們的學術思想，並嘗試指出各家得失之所在。結論部份則從發展策略的角度解釋三種道統論述的差異，及討論儒家與政治的關係。
The construction of orthodoxy and heresy is common to many schools and religions in the world, including Confucianism. This practice, predominant in neo-Confucianism from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, began to meet objections in the seventeenth century. As a development from the ambivalence in the past three centuries, modern Confucian discourse since 1950 harbors at least three orientations to the orthodoxy-heresy distinction: i) to reserve the orthodoxy-heresy distinction in historiography, i.e., studying neo-Confucianism through its own conceptions of orthodoxy and heresy, while making no use of them in constructing modern Confucian theory; ii) to update the neo-Confucian conceptions of orthodoxy and heresy with substantial alterations, attributing to them an importance equal to that to neo-Confucianism; and iii) to replace the neo-Confucian conceptions with an alternative set of distinction, functional to modern needs while less crucial to modern theory building. I thoroughly discussed the ideas of Wm. Theodore de Bary, John B. Henderson, Mou Tsung-san牟宗三， Ch’ien Mu 錢穆， Tu Wei-ming 杜維明and other scholars，who are taken as representatives of the three orientations mentioned above. The concluding section is an attempt to understand the differences among these three orientations from the their own strategic assumptions. It also briefly touches on the relationship between modern Confucian thinkers and politics.
