【作者】 俞祖华；

【导师】 郑大华；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 中国近现代史， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 激进主义、保守主义与自由主义一起构成近代中国的三大文化思潮。三大思潮既是相对独立的思想流派,有着各自的基本价值与歧异的方案设计,但又有多元一体的共时文化生态、并生互补的相同思想框架、交织重叠的近似问题领域,如都有民族主义立场,都有对现代性的批评,都有对社会主义的向往,都有着实现民族复兴的梦想,只是呈现方式有所不同。本论文以近代三大思潮的相互关系、多向互动为研究对象,试图较全面地认识三大思潮之间既分立又并生、既交锋又交集、既对立又对话的离合关系,探寻三大思潮之间的互动模式与不同思潮交集重组所产生的次元类型,从而为当下的以“在争论中明辨真理,在互动中凝聚共识”为目标的思想生态建设,为正确处理主流意识形态与其他社会思潮的关系提供有益的借鉴。论文分为五章,主要内容为：“第一章、绪论”。概述中国近代史上活跃着的激进主义、保守主义与自由主义等三大思潮及其离合关系,指出三大思潮是三个鼎立的、互相抗衡的价值系统,由于文化取向的不同,曾经展开过多次思想文化论战；同时并存于共同的思想框架,有一些相近相似的观念,并互相摄取、互相吸收,甚至互相转换。对三大思潮的学术史作了一些总结与反思,对学界围绕三大思潮的发端时间、发展阶段、类型、流派与评价的讨论与研究进行了评述,并提出了自己的见解。介绍了论文的选题意义、研究框架、基本思路与主要创新点。“第二章、近代中国自由主义的发展脉络”。分析了近代中国自由主义的不同类型与演变格局：从学理渊源的角度,可区分为西化自由主义与本土自由主义；从问题领域的角度,可区分政治自由主义、文化自由主义与经济自由主义；从问政方式的角度,把对“直接参政”感兴趣的行动型自由主义分为认可、容忍、融入现政府的介入型与同样热衷于“直接参政”但与当局互别苗头、另组政党、另走“第三条道路”的组党型,把拒绝“直接参政”的观念型自由主义者分为热衷于舆论干政、办报议政的议政型与“参透”政治因而与政治保持距离的疏离型4类。近代自由主义主要发生在政治与文化领域,经济自由主义较为薄弱。选取严复、胡适、殷海光为代表性人物,并以1903年严复翻译出版《群己权界论》、1922年胡适等人发表《我们的政治主张》、1941年中国民主政团同盟发表《中国民主政团同盟对时局主张纲领》三份标志性文本为重点,梳理了以严复为代表的、专注于思想启蒙的启蒙型自由主义,以胡适为代表的、徘徊于文化与政治之间的议政型自由主义,以40年代“中间路线”为代表的、着重于参政从政的行动型自由主义三种政治自由主义演进型态。梳理了自由主义在近代中国一脉相承、薪火相传而又不断发展、不断调整的思想历程。梳理了近代经济自由主义从“发声”到“变调”的历程：晚清的严复、梁启超等人介绍、表达过反对政府干预、主张放任自由、让市场充分发挥作用的主张。到了民国时期,普遍的情况是自由主义者在对个性解放、个人主义、民主、人权等话语连篇累牍的同时,对同为自由主义核心理念的自由竞争、市场经济、私有产权等缄口不言。他们主张政治上的自由主义与文化上的自由主义,而在经济上没有选择自由主义,而是倾向于与自由经济对立的计划经济、统制经济与社会主义。近代中国的自由主义思潮从最初鼓吹自由竞争、放任主义,到后来转向倡导与经济自由主义大异其趣、大相径庭的统制经济、社会主义。“第三章、近代中国的保守主义与激进主义”。以“一个模式”、“两次转向”、“三件文本”分析了近代保守主义尤其是近代文化保守主义。指出“西方物质——中国精神”是文化保守主义进行中西比较的典型模式。又指出近代文化保守主义经历了两次大的思想调整即“两次转向”：第一次以从康有为的三世进化史观到梁漱溟的文化三路向说为代表,由开外王转向保内圣,由西学的民主、科学转向儒家心性之学；第二次以从梁漱溟的文化三路向说到牟宗三提出的“三统”之说为代表,重心又转向“由内圣开出新外王”,由内在的心性之学转化出被称为“新外王”的民主与科学。还可通过分析文化保守主义的三件典型文本,观察文化保守主义的变通与坚持,梳理文化保守主义思潮演进的轨迹。这“三件文本”为：1935年1月10日,王新命等十教授发表的《中国本位的文化建设宣言》；1958年元旦,牟宗三等四位教授发表的《为中国文化敬告世界人士宣言》；2004(甲申)年9月由许嘉璐签名发表的《甲申文化宣言》。对近代中国的激进主义思潮,主要以五四时期的文化激进主义作为典型作了重点分析。指出以陈独秀等为代表的“文化激进主义”,其基本主张是激烈批判传统文化、同时强烈怀疑西方现代文明,它与胡适等的文化自由主义的共性是激烈反传统,区隔主要在于怀疑西化与力主西化。文化激进主义虽激进反传统,但并没有把传统文化当作统一整体加以全盘否定,这种激进反传统是一种具有历史合理性的、深刻的片面。“第四章、三大思潮的‘共同框架’与‘重叠共识’”。指出“三大思潮”,有着多元一体的共时文化生态、并生互补的共同思想框架、交织重叠的近似问题领域、相近相似的思想倾向,有着相似的关注与相近的关怀。其最大的共同点在于对实现国家富强目标的关怀、对实现民族复兴愿景的向往,都有着民族主义的情怀与情结。三大思潮的共性还有：均为“现代”思潮,均主张实现现代化转型,主张接纳现代性,只是三者对现代化道路的追寻、对现代性诉求的表达呈现出了不同的特点；都受到传统思维方式的影响,都有着对传统文化的眷恋,即使主张激进反传统的激进主义与自由主义,其对本土文化的眷恋、珍爱之情与情不自禁的回首、返观仍依稀可鉴；都有着未来走向社会主义的美好愿景,都不同程度地呈现出社会主义的色彩、社会主义的取向,都以不同形式将社会主义纳入其思想框架；均起源、发端于戊戌思潮,即戊戌思潮成为三大思潮的共同源头。“第五章、三大思潮的个性特色及其相互转换”。以五四话语诠释系统、国家观念与个体自述为重点,对“三大思潮”代表人物的话语特色、观念特色与文化心态进行了分析与比较,以期更好地把握三大思潮的思想个性。指出三大思潮从各自的角度解读、诠释着“五四意义”,从而形成了三种不同的“五四”话语诠释系统：激进主义从革命斗争的现实需要出发,着重于从政治、从救亡、从民族主义、从民族民主革命的革命范式与政治框架去解读与诠释“五四意义”,建构了突出政治意义的五四革命话语诠释系统,后随着改革开放的历史进程的展开,激进主义的“革命范式”、“政治范式”开始向“发展范式”、“现代化范式”过渡；自由主义建构了凸现文化变革、突出个性解放的启蒙话语诠释系统,这一话语系统褒新文化运动贬学生运动,将从文化运动到政治运动的发展视为“干扰”、“救亡压倒启蒙”；保守主义赞成文化运动的路径但反对新文化运动的激进反传统主义,其对五四运动的诠释大体经历了从以往的接纳民主、科学“新外王”的“返本开新”话语诠释系统到五四“文化断裂”话语诠释系统的转变。以胡适、陈独秀与梁漱溟三位知识领袖为重点,对自由主义、社会主义与新儒学三大知识群体的国家建设思想做了比较分析。指出以民族主义建设现代国家,是其政治共识,也是民国时期自由主义、社会主义与新儒学三大知识群体的“共同观念”。但他们的国家建设思想也有区别：三人早年都曾向往西方宪政,向往西方现代国家制度,但胡适一直坚持以实现宪政为国家建设的目标,而陈独秀对宪政民主经历了从向往到否定、再到重新肯定的复杂变化,梁漱溟在20年代中期后对宪政运动采取了冷漠以对的态度,并别出心裁设计了“非宪政化的民主制”；他们对现代国家建设的路径有着不同的思考,陈独秀主张革命建国,胡适、梁漱溟都主张和平建国,不过胡适主张“宪政随时随处都可以开始”,而梁漱溟则认为“宪政可以为远图而非所谓急务”；胡适、梁漱溟和陈独秀分别从个人、社会与国家三个层面入手,选择了“救国须从救出你自己下手”、“为国家建设社会”、“从他们手中抢夺来政权”三个路径。以瞿秋白、胡适、梁漱溟等人的“自述”为重点,分析比较了“自述”体现的三大思潮代表人物的文化心态。指出从“自述”可以看出三大思潮代表人物有着共同的忧患情怀,包括对民族苦难的体验、对社会苦难的悲悯、对家境苦难的伤痛与对人生苦难的品味,但他们都没有被苦难压垮。他们都关注人生问题与社会问题,纠缠于学术与政治,纠结于入世与出世,彷徨于书斋与社会。相对而言,保守主义者更关注人生问题,侧重于思想文化的进路,希望通过道德重建、文化复兴,重建中国人的人生态度,进而实现民族复兴；激进主义者更关注社会问题,侧重于政治救亡的进路,希望通过“直接行动”、“根本改造”,实现社会变革,包括通过参加社会变革的实践实现“思想改造”；自由主义者也重点关注社会问题,不过所选择的路径是“救国须从救出你自己下手”,心存思想启蒙的路径依赖。他们不仅面临着政治救亡与思想启蒙、激进革命与渐进改良的路径抉择,而且面临着如何在新旧社会思潮中进行择取,如何在传统文化、西方文化与社会主义文明进行文化取向的比选,其文化选择与路径选择一样充满着矛盾。由于所处时代的复杂多样与快速多变,使近代思想家的思想倾向、思想态度呈现出复杂、善变的特点,有时倾向保守,有时倾向激进,又有时激进与保守交织于胸；思想家的思想在“三大思潮”之间不断位移摇摆。同时由于时代变化,思想思潮的激进与保守发生易位,本来站在时代前例的“激进”者,在出现新生代更为“激进”的思想元素之后显得“保守”、落伍。近代思想史上的激进主义、自由主义与保守主义,虽然是相对鼎立的思想态度,但三者之间者之间既有对垒也有对话,既有交锋也有交集,既有紧张也有舒缓,既有显性边界也有模糊地带,且不断发生分合嬗变,不断进行调适转换；三者之间不全是制肘、拆台,也有互相砥砺、互相启发、互为修正、互为支持、互相提供思想灵感的另一面。更多还原

【Abstract】 Radicalism, Conservatism and liberalism constituted three ideological trends in modern China. They were separate schools of thought, and each had its own basic value and schematic design. However, they had pluralistic synchronic cultural ecology, shared the same reciprocal ideological frameworks, concentrated on similar issues such as nationalism standpoint, criticism of modernity, a yearning for socialism, a dream to achieve national revival. This thesis examines the complicated interrelationship of these three modern ideological trends. It is my purpose that by looking at the interactive mode of these three ideological trends, we can get an accurate understanding on how to deal with the relationship between the main-stream ideology and other social thoughts under current situation.This thesis is divided into five chapters as the following.The first chapter is the introduction of this thesis, in which there are three parts. The first part summarizes racialism, conservatism and liberalism active in modern China, and their on-off relationships as well. It is my belief that these three trends constituted a tripartite value system and used to launch many ideological and cultural debates because of their different cultural orientation. They shared the same ideological frame and similar ideas, and therefore, they absorbed and drew lesson from each other, and sometimes, even transformed from one trend to another. The second part summarizes and rethinks the academic history on these three ideological trends, and makes a comment on the debates and research by the academic circles on several basic issues such as the year when they were launched, their stages of development, genres, schools and the evaluation. I put forward my own views on these issues. In the third part, I offered the method and the academic importance this thesis has.The second chapter examines the development of modern liberalism in China. I analyze the different types of modern liberalism in China and its evolutional pattern. In fact, from the perspective of its theoretical origin, modern liberalism in China can be divided into westernized and local one. From the perspective of problematic domain, it can be divided into political liberalism, cultural liberalism and economic liberalism. While when we look at this issue from the perspective of politics, we have action liberalism which was interested in participating state affairs directly and ideational liberalism which refused to participate state affairs directly. Action liberalism can be divided into interventional and forming party, the former not only accepted and tolerated the government, but also integrated into it, while the later took the opposite stand by forming new party and taking "the third road". Ideational liberalism can be divided into "participating in state affairs" type which was interested in participating in state affairs by whipping up public opinion and starting newspaper and alienation type which kept distance from politics. Modern liberalism took place mainly in political and cultural domains, while economic liberalism was relatively weak.In this chapter, I choose Yan Fu, Hu Shi and Yin Haiguang as exponents. I focus on On Liberty translated by Yan Fu in1903, Our Politics published by Hu Shi in1922and Agenda of Chinese Democratic Group Alliance published by Chinese Democratic Group Alliance in1941to examine three kinds of political liberalism and their evolution. These three kinds of political liberalism were enlightenment liberalism which concentrated on enlightenment of thoughts with Yan Fu as an exponent, liberalism hovering between culture and politics which was interested in participating in state affairs with Hu Shi as an icon and action liberalism focusing on participating in politics with the middle course in1940s e. Indeed, by scrutinizing this, it is possible to see the evolution of liberalism in modern China.In this chapter, I also analyze the development of modern economic liberalism. In late Qing dynasty, Yan Fu and Liang Qichao used to introduce and express their positions against government intervention. They advocated allowing unrestrained freedom and therefore, let the market play a role. While in the republican period, it was common that liberalists were very interested in individual emancipation, individualism, democratic and human rights, but they kept silent on such core ideas as free competition, market economy and private property rights. They supported political and cultural liberalisms, however, they did not choose liberalism in economic domain. They tended to implement planned economy, controlled economy and socialism. Modern liberalism in China started with advocating free competition and the policy of non-interference, but ended in advocating controlled economy and socialism which were opposite to economic liberalism.The third chapter focuses on modern conservatism and radicalism in China. I mainly examine modern cultural conservatism by analyzing "one paradigm","two shifts" and "three texts". It is my belief that "western material-----Chinese spirit" is the typical schema for comparing Chinese and western cultural liberalism. And modern cultural conservatism experienced two turns:the first was from Kang Youwei to Liang Suming, from democracy and science emphasized by western learning to the mind-nature philosophy advocated by Confucianism. The second was from Liang Suming to Mu Zongsan, it turned from inward mind-nature philosophy to democracy and science. I examine the evolution of cultural conservatism by looking at three typical texts which are The declaration of the cultural construction of China’s standard published by ten professors on January10th,1935, To inform the world declaration for Chinese culture by four professors on the New Years Day in1958and Jia Shen Cultural Declaration signed by Xu Jialu in September,2004.As for radicalism, I highlight cultural radicalism during the May Fourth Movement period. The cultural radicalism represented by Chen Duxiu criticized traditional culture strongly, while it suspected modern western civilization strongly too. It shared such common characteristics as being against tradition strongly with the cultural liberalism represented by Hu Shi. The difference between them lied in their attitudes towards westernization. It is important to point that this cultural radicalism did not totally repudiate traditional culture, though it was against tradition.The fourth chapter introduces the common framework of these three ideological trends and their overlapping consensus. The three ideological trends shared a lot in common, such as pluralistic synchronic cultural ecology, the same and complementary ideological framework, the similar issues which were overlapping, the similar ideological tendency and the similar concerns. One of the biggest similarities was their appeals for national prosperity and rejuvenation. Besides, they were all modern trends of thoughts with the demand of completing modernization transformation and accepting modernization. However, they showed different characteristics in expressing their appeals. These three ideological trends were all affected by traditional way of thinking. They showed deep love to traditional culture, including radicalism and liberalism which were against tradition strongly. They showed their inclination for socialism. They had Wu-Xu thoughts as their common ideological origin.In the fifth chapter, I turn to examine the distinctive features of the three ideological trends and their reciprocal transmission. I analyze and compare the representatives’discourses features, concept and their cultural attitudes by highlighting the May fourth movement discourse, national idea and their individual reports. The three ideological trends interpreted the significance of May fourth movement, and therefore, formed three kinds of different interpretation system. Radicalism focused on explaining " significance of May fourth movement" from the political perspective, and this "political scheme" and "revolutionary scheme" transformed into "evolutionary scheme" and "modernized scheme" along with the advancement of our reform and opening up; Liberalism highlighted cultural change and individual emancipation, and therefore, formed enlightened interpretation system which praised the New Culture Movement, but belittled the importance of student movement. Conservatism approved the pathway of New Culture Movement, but opposed its radical anti-traditionalism.This thesis also analyzes liberalism, socialism and Neo-Confucianism and their thoughts for national construction by focusing Hu Shi, Chen Duxiu and Liang Suming. They had such common concept as constructing modern sate based on nationalism. However, there were differences in their thoughts for national construction. Hu Shi, Chen Duxiu and Liang Suming used to yearn for western constitutionalism and western modern state system, but Hu Shi had been insisted on that the nation-building goal should be based on achieving constitutionalism. Chen Duxiu at first yearned for constitutional democracy, but later he changed his mind to deny it, at last he reaffirmed constitutional democracy. Liang Suming took an indifferent attitude towards constitutional movement in the late1920s, and designed a kind of non-constitutionalism democracy. They had different proposition on how to construct modern state. Chen Duxiu advocated to found a state by revolution, while Hu Shi and Liang Suming held different opinions, they proposed to build a country in a peaceful way. Hu Shi believed that a constitutional government could start anytime and anywhere, Liang Suming held that constitutionalism could only be achieved in the future. Hu Shi, Liang Suming and Chen Duxiu chose three different pathways for nation construction respectively, Hu insisted that saving the nation should start from saving yourself, Liang advocated building a society for nation, while Chen supported "seizing power from them".I also compare and analyze the major figures’ cultural attitudes in these three ideological trends by focusing on Qu Qiubai, Hu Shi and Liang Suming’s narratives. It is possible for us to see from their narratives that they had the common sense of crisis, including their experience of national suffering, family and individual suffering, however, they all survived the suffering. They all paid attention to problems in life and in society, hovered between academic and politics, between "entering" and "outing" secular life. By contrast, the conservatives highlighted problems in life and ideological and cultural construction, they hoped to reconstruct Chinese people’s attitudes towards life, and therefore, to achieve national rejuvenation by moral reconstruction and cultural renaissance. The activists focused more on social problems, they had a call for social change by "direct action" and "entire reconstruction", including practicing social change, and ideological remolding as well. The liberalists also concerned with social problems, but they held that to save the nation should start with saving yourself. Their choice was political salvation or enlightenment values, radical revolution or gradual improvement. They also had to decide which was better between the new and old social ideological trends. How to look at traditional culture, western culture and socialist civilization was also the main issue for them to deal with.My conclusion is that modern thinkers’thoughts were complicated and changeable due to the situation. Sometimes they tended to be conservative, but sometimes they tended to be radical, these two trends were sometimes overlapping. Radicalism, liberalism and conservatism in modern China were relatively separate ideological trends, but they were not completely opposite to each other. There were both opposition and dialogues, both dominant boundaries and obscure zones between each other. They adjusted themselves constantly. On the one hand, they tried to counterbalance each other, on the other hand, they inspired, revised and supported each other.更多还原