【作者】 曾科；

【导师】 郑大华；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 中国近现代史， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 国家主义的学理最早可以上溯到古希腊时期的国家目的论，而其更为广阔的历史根据则内在于近代西方民族国家的形成。19世纪下半叶以降，随着西学东渐的历史潮流，西方的国家主义开始传入中国。国家主义适应了近代中国从中华帝国向现代民族国家转型的历史需要，因而在近代中国广为传播。本文以国家主义与20世纪20年代文化、政治思潮之间的互动关系为研究对象。透过思潮互动的角度揭示出国家主义的核心价值理念，以及中、西国家主义之间的差异，是本文的研究旨趣所在。本文所使用的“20世纪20年代”主要是指1918—1930年；“文化、政治思潮”主要是指文化保守主义、民族主义、自由主义、马克思主义以及三民主义。全文分为七章。第一章梳理国家主义的西学渊源及其传入近代中国的历史脉络。国家主义属于政治学的范畴，是与自由主义相互对立的思想体系，其学理主要包括国家目的论和国家主权论。国家主义在近代中国的移植有着非常深厚的土壤，因为要求实现国家主权的独立与完整正是国家主义的基本诉求之一。从词源上看，汉语文献中“国家主义”一词的出现最早是在19世纪末20世纪初近代中国半殖民地化程度急剧深化的时期。然而，当国家主义传入中国时，它所遭遇的是一种不同于西方的历史语境，后者既为国家主义的移植提供了土壤，也使之产生了某种理论上的突变。清末时期传入中国的国家主义，在20世纪20年代迅速发展成为一股影响较大的政治思潮。20世纪20年代的国家主义思潮最初发轫于1918年5月留日学生归国运动；1923—1925年间中国少年自强会、大江会以及醒狮社等国家主义团体的出现，标志着国家主义思潮的兴起；1925年5月五卅运动的爆发，促进了国家主义思潮由兴起走向高涨；1926年7月北伐战争的爆发，既使一度高涨的国家主义思潮顿时低落，也使国家主义呈现出某些新的面貌。第二章考察20世纪20年代国家主义思潮的社会载体——国家主义者——的基本特征。所采取的研究视角是对《醒狮周报》撰稿人群体进行个案分析，揭示其身份特征、聚集途径以及分化、解体的情况。《醒狮周报》的撰稿人基本上出生于1890—1900年之间，他们在青年时期大多就读于都市的新式学堂，后在国内高等学校或国外继续深造，所从事的职业部门也集中于大学、报社与出版社等新型自由行业。将各撰稿人汇聚成群的联结纽带主要是对国家主义的共同兴趣和信仰。这一新型聚集途径的出现与近代中国社会、文化的转型密不可分，集中反映了“后科举时代”知识分子新的聚集方式与身份认同的产生。但《醒狮周报》撰稿人对“国家主义”的侧重点不尽一致，曾琦等人看重的是“国家主义”这块政治招牌，王光祈、余家菊等人视民族文化的复兴为“国家主义”的题中应有之义，何炳松、邓叔耘等人则将兴趣放在国家主义学理的探索上。在长达两年（1924—1926）的办报过程中，随着《醒狮周报》本身思想主张的变化，以及国民革命高潮的到来，其撰稿人队伍不可避免地发生了严重的分化。通过研究《醒狮周报》撰稿人构成、聚集与分化的情况，有助于把握1920年代国家主义思潮的兴起与近代中国社会文化转型之间的互动关系。第三章从现代性的视野来考察国家主义与20世纪20年代文化保守主义思潮的关系。从中西文化观上看，国家主义者强调传统文化的特殊性，肯定传统文化的价值，主张以中华文化为本位，实现中、西文化的融汇，属于文化保守主义的重要一翼。第一次世界大战后欧洲思想界“东方文化救世论”的流行，是促使国家主义者趋同文化保守主义的主要原因；新文化运动对传统文化的猛烈批判，以及新文化派所提倡的“西化”论，是刺激国家主义者趋同文化保守主义的直接原因。在国家主义者看来，“传统”并不是一个绝对同质的、不可分割的整体，西化论全盘反传统的观点是不可理解的。国家主义者虽然接受西方现代性，但这种接受是以中国传统文化为主体的融合。国家主义者指出了西方近代文化的内在缺陷，并据此对中国传统文化的近代意义做出了合理的阐释，西化论对西方近代文化的被动承受是不能赞同的。总的来说，国家主义者对西方现代性持一种且迎且拒的复杂态度。这种复杂态度是近代中国文化保守主义者所普遍具有的。第四章探讨国家主义者对“一战”后民族自决思潮的回应，并揭示此中透露出的国家主义与民族主义之间的某种关系。民族自决原则是近代西方民族主义的重要理论基石之一。第一次世界大战期间及战后，民族自决思潮在世界范围内广为兴盛，对中国政治产生了深远的影响。游离于国、共两党之外的国家主义者对民族自决理论进行了较为深入的研究，并针对中国现实设计了民族自决的方案。在国家主义者看来，民族自决的唯一出路是各族人民武装起来求得中华民族整体的自决，而不是允许蒙、藏独立建国。其理论困境则是在军国民主义与世界主义、“国家”与“国民”之间存在深度紧张。透过国家主义者的民族自决论述，可以发现其鼓吹的“国家主义”接近于“公民民族主义”。第五章从20世纪20年代特定的历史语境出发，来解读国家主义与自由主义的关系。20世纪20年代国家主义与自由主义的关系比较复杂，两者既有相互对立的一面，又有相互沟通的一面。“一战”后世界主义虽盛极一时，但国际社会仍然是“强权战胜公理”，自由知识分子与国家主义者都主张调和国家主义与世界主义，思想上颇多契合之处。新文化运动引起了思想界对中国文化出路的普遍关注，自由知识分子提倡西化论，主张按照西方现代文明的模式来建设新文化，国家主义者则趋同于文化保守主义，强调对于民族文化特性的维护，双方难以沟通。1920年代国内相继出现北洋军阀专制政权和国民党专制政权，自由知识分子奉行一贯的改良路线，国家主义者则坚守革命立场，双方虽有互动、对话，然始终难以携手合作。只有多层次地梳理20世纪20年代的历史语境，才能够理解国家主义与自由主义对立与沟通并存的复杂关系。第六章考察中共建党至北伐战争爆发前（1921—1926）国家主义者与马克思主义者的关系。中共建党初期就制定了建立“民主主义的联合战线”的政策，对国家主义者进行了争取。由于受到五四时期社会主义的洗礼，国家主义者在一定程度上认同于中共民主主义的革命纲领，接受了中共的“联战”。但是,随着国共合作的实现以及工农运动的蓬勃兴起，中共所宣传的阶级斗争以及无产阶级专政，为鼓吹超阶级的国家观的国家主义者所不能认同，后者断然拒绝了中共的“联战”。与此同时，中共也愈发强调无产阶级对于国民革命的领导地位，国家主义者的“联战”价值有所下降，但仍在争取之列。直至北伐战争爆发，中共才彻底放弃对于国家主义者的“联战”，将其径直列为国民革命要打倒的对象，双方关系彻底决裂。第七章研究孙中山逝世后（1925—1930年）国家主义者对三民主义的认识及其演变。以1927年4月“四一二政变”为界，1925—1930年间国家主义者对三民主义的认识可细分为前、后两个历史阶段。在前一阶段，由于“联国反共”的政治需要，国家主义者着重澄清了三民主义与共产主义的区别，并从理论上实现了国家主义与三民主义的对接与融合，对三民主义基本上持继承与肯定的态度。在后一阶段，由于反对国民党一党专政的政治需要，国家主义者参与到三民主义“本体”问题的讨论中来，对三民主义基本上持批判与否定的态度。造成这种认识变化的原因与国内政治形势的风云变幻息息相关。国家主义者围绕三民主义展开的种种论说，是以其政治利益、政治主张的实现为核心的。在各个不同的历史阶段，因应于政治形势的变化，国家主义者在政治上的主张有所不同，其对三民主义的认识随之而变。文章最后为“结论”部分。透过思潮互动的角度，将20世纪20年代国家主义思潮的核心价值理念概括成“国家至上”，同时揭示了中、西国家主义的几点区别：首先，中国近代国家主义的西学来源并不限于西方的国家主义，它还把国家主义之外的西学成分纳入其中。其次，中国近代国家主义采取了“托古”的论述策略。第三，中国近代国家主义具有“国家—个人”、“国家—世界”、“国家——民族”三个参照系，西方国家主义则只具有前两个参照系。最后一点也是最重要的一点是，中国近代国家主义的终极价值诉求是和平主义与世界大同，西方国家主义则逐渐发展成为鼓吹对外扩张与侵略战争的军国主义、法西斯主义。从总体上看，中国近代国家主义呈现出典型的中国化特质，这一特质的基本内涵是要求实现中华民族的自决与独立。这与鼓吹对外侵略的西方国家主义具有本质上的区别。造成这一本质区别的历史、文化原因主要有以下两点。其一，传统的大同思想、“仁爱和平”的人文理念，制约了中国近代国家主义不至滑向黩武的军国主义。其二，近代中国积贫积弱、落后挨打的现实环境，决定了中国近代国家主义所面临的时代主题是挽救民族危亡，而不是对外侵略扩张。更多还原

【Abstract】 As a political trend of thought,Statism boomed in16thand17thcentury’s West.Itstheory could derive from State Purpose Concept in Ancient Greece,and its extensivehistroical basis lied in the formation of Modern West Nations. Conforming to thetransit of China form Ancient Empire to Modern Nation,Statism was rather popular inmodern history of China.In the latter half of19thcentury,Statism was introduced intoChina in the course of west learning spreading to the East. Besides,combining withChinese traditional cultural and ethnic concept,Statism was one of the most influentialtrend of thought in modern history of China.This article is to study on the relationbetween statism and cultural and political thoughts in1920s. The research objectivelies in revealing and summarizing the core value idea of statism. The concept of1920s refers to1918-1930.The concept of Cultural&Political Thoughts includescultural conservatism,nationalism,liberalism,Marxism as well as the Three People’sPrinciples.This article consists of seven chapters.Chapter One explores the west learning origin of statism and the historical context ofthe circulation of Statism into China.Generally speaking,Statism belongs to the fieldof political science,and it is contradictory to Liberalism.The theoretic basis of Statismincludes State Purpose Concept and State Sovereignty Concept.The soil oftransplantation of State into China was fertile because asking for sovereignty andintegrity was Statism’s basic proposition.From the point of view of etymology,theperiod of Statism first used in Chinese Literature was in the late19thcentury and theearly20thcentury when China’s semi-colonial course was sharplydeepening.However,as it was introduced into China, Statism was confronted with adifferent historical context and cultural tradition,which not only provided thetransplantation of Statism with soil,but also made it appear theoreticvariations.Statism was developing into a political trend of thought in1920s.This trend began in Chinese students studying in Japan Returning to China Movement inMay,1918.The establishment of Chinese Youth Self-Improvement Organization,GreatRiver Group as well as Awakening Lion Newspaper during1923-1925marked therise of this trend.May30thMovement in1925brought this trend to climax.Theoutburst of North Expedition in June1926poured cold water to this prevailingtrend,and made it appear some new characters.Chapter Two studies the writers’identity,aggregation approach and differentiation ofthe Lion Camp Weekly.On the whole, Lion Camp Weekly’s writers were bornbetween1890and1900.They attended urban new type of school during their juvenileperiod.and pursued their learning in domestic higher institutions or aboard,and theiroccupation sectors focused on new type of liberal professions, such as college,newspaper office and press.It was through common interest and belief in Statism thatthe writes walked together.The appearance of this new type of aggregation approachwas associated with the transformation of society and culture in modern China,andclearly reflected the rise of new types of ways of communication and identity in thepost-era of Imperial Examination. However, the writers had different key point aboutStatism.Zeng Qi considered Statism as an political signboard.Wang Guang-qi and YuJia-ju deemed the revival of national culture necessary.He Bing-song and DengShu-yun were devoted to elaborating the theoretical basis of Statism.During the two-years of running process（1924-1926），as Lion Camp Weekly changed its assertionand National Revolution burst,the writers group inevitably split.Chapter Three is an academic investigation of cultural conservative thought of Statismin the1920s from the modernity angle of view. The concept of Oriental cultural Savethe World, which prevailed among European Intellectual after World War Ⅰ, thecriticism Traditional Chinese Culture suffered from the New Culture Movement, andthe argument of Westernization proposed by the New Culture Group, urged LionCamp Party to be cultural conservatives. In Lion Camp Party’s view, tradition was notan absolutely indivisible homogeneity entirety, so rejection of tradition wasincomprehensible. Lion Camp Party accepted Western modernity, but that acceptationwas some kind of fusion based on Traditional Chinese Culture. Lion Camp Party pointed out the inherent defect of Modern Western Culture, andelaborated the modern significance of traditional Chinese Culture, so passivereception of Modern Western Culture was wrong. Overall, Lion Camp Party’s attitudetoward Western modernity was complex, including both approval and denial. Thatcomplex attitude was common among cultural conservatives in Modern History ofChina.Chapter Four examines Lion Camp Party’s reaction to the thought current of NationalSelf-Determination,and reveals the relationship between Statism and Nationalism.National Self-Determination concept is one of the theoretical cornerstones ofnationalism trend in the modern history of the west. During the First World War andpostwar, the thought trend of national self-determination rose worldwide. The LionCamp Party, standing on the outside of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, didintensive study on the National Self-Determination concept, and devisedself-determination scheme according Chinese condition. In their view, the only roadto self-determination was the militarization of people of all ethnic groups, instead ofpermitting Mongolia or Tibet split. However, their theoretical predicament lied intension between militarism and cosmopolitism, as well as between the concept ofNation and Citizen. From their discourse about National Self-Determination concept,it is obvious that Statism advocated by them was close to Civic Nationalism.Chapter Five studies the relation between Statism and Liberalism. During1920s,therelationship between statism and liberalism is complicated.That is to say, they haveopposition side as well as integration side.After World War Ⅰ,cosmopolitanism wasprevailing,but the international community was still dominated by power instead ofjustice.Both liberal intellectuals and statists advocated reconciling nationalism andcosmopolitanism. Their view was identical. The New Culture Movement put forwardthe issue of Chinese culture development.Liberal intellectuals proposed that Chineseculture should be westernized,while statists persisted cultural conservatism.It wasdifficult for them to reconcile their opinions. In1920s there appeared in successiontwo authoritarian regimes, liberal intellectuals insisted on reform,while statismadhered to revolution.They used to negotiate,but eventually each went their own way.Only through intensive analysis,can we understand the complicated relationbetween statism and liberalism.Chapter Six studies the relation between Statist and Marxist during1921-1926.Chinese Communist Party established the policy of DemocraticRevolution United Front,and Statist to some extent identified with this policy becauseof socialist ideological trend during the May Fourth period.However,as theestablishment of Kmt-cpc cooperation and the rise of the movement of workers andpeasants,class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat were contradictory to StateTranscending Classes put forward by Statist,who refused to join in DemocraticRevolution United Front.Meanwhile,Marist put more importance on the workingclass,and the value of Statist was declining.But Marist still tried to get alliance withstatist until the North Expedition,after which Marist and Statist split up.Chapter Seven researches the Lion Camp Party’s discourse and its evolvement aboutthe Three People’s Principles in1925-1930. Taking the April12thIncident as the lineof demarcation,we could divide the Lion Camp Party’s discourse about the ThreePeople’s Principles into two historical stages.During the previous stage,because ofpolitical need for allying Kuomintang and resisting the Communist Party,the LionCamp Party clarified the differences between the Three People’s Principles andCommunism,and achieved theoretical union between the Three People’s Principlesand Statism,and kept inheriting and positive attitude towards the Three People’sPrinciples.During the later stage,because of political need for opposing Kuomintang’smonopoly,the Lion Camp Party took part in the discussion of the Three People’sPrinciples’ontology,and kept criticizing and negative attitude towards the ThreePeople’s Principles. The course of the change was closely related with changeablepolitical situation.All the Lion Camp Party’s discourses about the Three People’sPrinciples were concentrated on his political interests and proposals.As a result of thevariety of political situation,the Lion Camp Party changed his political proposalsduring different historical stages,and consequently changed his view towards theThree People’s Principles.The Conclusion summarizes the core value concept of Statism as State Supreme,and generalizes the different points between Modern Chinese Statism and WesternStatism.First,the origin of west learning of Modern Chinese Statism was not limited inWestern Statism,Second,Modern Chinese Statism adopted the strategy of JoeAncient.Third，Modern Chinese Statism had three frames of reference while WesternStatism just had two.The last but the most important,the future of Modern ChineseStatism is pacifism and cosmopolitanism while Western Statism eventually developedinto militarism and fascism.In a word,Modern Chinese Statism assumed the characterof sinicization, the basic content of which is for the self-determination andindependence of the Chinese Nation.更多还原