【作者】 唐小兵；

【导师】 许纪霖；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 专门史， 2009， 博士

【副题名】以1930年代《大公报》“星期论文”和《申报》“自由谈”为中心的考察

【摘要】 1930年代的中国,《申报》和《大公报》是影响巨大的两份报纸,《申报》“自由谈”和《大公报》“星期论文”则是这两份报纸上声名远播的舆论空间。也许我们可以说,这两个舆论空间已然代表了现代中国公共舆论发展到1930年代,能够达到的最高水准。现代中国的公共舆论具有独特的历史根源,从精神志趣而言,现代新式知识分子继承的是传统士人的清议传统;从社会空间而言,现代知识分子使用的却是从西方引入的新式报刊等传播媒体;从知识资源而言,现代知识分子处所谓三千年未有之大变局之中,融合古今中西之说,成就一家谠论之言;从身份立场而言,现代知识分子自从1905年科举制度废除之后,已然从传统的政教合一制度架构里释放出来,大多数以政治体制外的超然身份来议论时政。《申报》“自由谈”(1932-1935)由自法国回来具有革新思想的黎烈文主编后,迅速地吸引了一大群左翼知识分子的参与,而当时的左翼刊物在政治权力的围堵之下,已经很难寻觅生存之空间。以鲁迅、茅盾等为核心的左翼知识分子(自然还包括一些其他立场的上海知识分子),在“自由谈”这个舆论空间,发表了大量的对于当时时政、社会问题与文化现象的评论,造就了一个批评性和反叛性的文化政治空间。《大公报》“星期论文”(1934-1937)开设于1934年初,最初由胡适、傅斯年、蒋廷黻等北平自由派知识分子担任特别撰稿人,后来迅速地扩展到《独立评论》派知识分子,乃至扩展到全国关怀社稷民生的知识分子。胡适等知识分子在这个名震一时的言论空间发表了大量涉及民主宪政、民族主义、政党政治、中日关系、教育文化等议题的政论,与《大公报》社评形成了良性互动,共同构造了一个具有公共性和深度的舆论空间。通过对这两个个案的具体细致的分析,我们可以发现,1930年代的公共舆论已然呈现出内在的分裂。这种分裂是全方位的,首先,“星期论文”作者群体以天下为己任建构自我认同,试图重建社会重心,而“自由谈”作者群体却认为“文人无行”、“文人无用”,自我边缘化乃至自我贬斥;其次,“星期论文”的作者群体绝大多数寄身大学、科研院所,具有学者身份,且多数留学欧美,具有布尔乔亚的生活方式,而“自由谈”作者群体大多数是学院体制外的文化出版工业上的“生产者”,有些作者甚至是没有固定职业的自由撰稿人,从留学背景而言,“自由谈”相当一部分作者曾有留学日本的经历。再次,从公共舆论的思想资源和立论根基而言,“星期论文”作者学科背景相对多元化,政治学、社会学、文学、法学等各种社会科学乃至自然科学出身的作者都在这个专栏发表言论,其思想资源相对丰富,而且对于欧美的政治哲学和政治生活相对熟悉,在政论中多有引用,他们的言论根基奠定在启蒙运动以来的理性基础之上,而“自由谈”作者群体绝大多数是文艺知识分子,对于中国文学传统和西方文艺更有积累和兴趣,他们讨论政治现象和社会文化现象时往往生动而形象,他们自认为代表了当时中国最广大的底层和民众,因此,民意成为“自由谈”的核心。最后,从公共舆论的话语风格而言,“星期论文”理性色彩浓郁,注重以渐进主义和建设式的方式发表言论,而“自由谈”文风自由活泼,不拘一格,嬉笑怒骂自成一体。通过对这两个舆论空间及其外部环境的比较可见,公共舆论的发展与学术共同体的成熟密切相关,现代中国的公共舆论无法脱离政治权力的限制或者庇佑,舆论与权力之间呈现出复杂的纠葛,而舆论与知识分子的心态(或者说自我认同)之间也有密切的关联。事实上,无论是“星期论文”作者群体,还是“自由谈”作者群体,都没有以舆论空间为基础组建政党的政治诉求,而这两个知识群体的日常生活与当时的内地社会相当隔膜,而与当时的朝野两个政党却发生着千丝万缕的关联,因此,他们的言论虽然具有一定的社会影响力,却无法从根本上改造当时的政治生态与社会生活,正因为此,“星期论文”的部分作者直接去南京从政,而“自由谈”的部分作者相继奔赴延安。现代中国的公共舆论,虽然轰轰烈烈,大有“一言可以兴邦,一言可以丧邦”的豪迈,却因为市民社会发育的滞后、社会运动的匮乏、政党政治的倾轧、教育水平的低级等因素,而最终沦落为历史深处的一曲绝唱。导论部分,主要是论述论文的问题意识、研究对象、研究方法以及相关的学术研究。第一章分析现代中国公共舆论的历史系谱、近代形态与自我理解,考察舆论与清议之历史关联,清议如何一步步向舆论转化,知识分子对于舆论之价值的认识的分化及其原因。第二章分析公共舆论赖以存在的公共空间,以《大公报》、《独立评论》、《申报》为中心分析文化出版空间是如何历史地建构起来的。第三章分析公共舆论中的知识分子,考察北平学院知识分子在学术与政治之间的紧张与调适,同时考察上海文人的自我意识,最后考察公共舆论与权力网络的冲突与互动。第四章以胡适、鲁迅的言论为例,进行细致的文本分析,考究理性、民意与公共舆论的关系,同时简要分析公共舆论的讨论主题与思想资源。第五章重点研究“星期论文”和“自由谈”的思维方式和话语类型,并分析两者之间的内在关联。结语归纳1930年代公共舆论的特征及其内在缺陷。更多还原

【Abstract】 In 1930s,Shen Bao Newspaper(《申报》) and Da Gongbao Newspaper(《大公报》) have the most influence and the strongest power.The columns of Free Talking in Shen Bao and Weekend Review in Da Gongbao are famours discourse space in modern China.Maybe we can draw a conclusion that the two columns represent the highest level of public opinion in that era. Public opinion in modern China has its special historic origin.As to sprit and mind,modern and new style intellectuals adopted the Qingyi(清议) tradition of ancient intellectuals;As to social space,modern intellectuals made use of new media as newspapers and magazines introduced from the West;As thought resource,modern intellectuals faced a great historic change and they accepted and developed knowledge from the ancient,the present age,China and the West.Then they created their own argument and political commentary.As to identity and position,modern intellectuals were liberated from the traditional political structure which fixed politics and religion together after the imperial examinations were abolished.So most of them discussed and criticize the politics and society from an object role which was from politics system.When Li Lie-wen(黎烈文) who was thoughtful and came back from France became the chief editor of the column of Free Talking,the column absorbed many left-wing intellectuals to write for it.At that period,left-wing publications were banned by political power and could not find social space to express their opinion and feeling.Left-wing intellectuals such as Luxun(鲁迅) and Maodun(茅盾)(of course including other intellectuals ) wrote much commentary about political problems,social problems and cultural phenomenon.Such discourse produced a critical and protest cultural-political space.The column of Weekend Review in Da Gongbao Newspaper began in the January in 1934.Firstly,Liberal intellectuals in Beijing such as Hushi(胡适),Fu Si-nian(傅斯年) and Jiang Tingfu(蒋廷黻)etc were invited by Da Gongbao Newspaper to be the Special Writers.Secondly,the most writers of Magazine Independent Review(《独立评论》)became this column’ s writers also.Lastly,famous intellectuals in China who were interested in political commentary and public opinion also joined in the column. Intellectuals such as Hushi(胡适) published much reviews in this column what were about democratic politics,nationalism,party politics,the relation between China and Japan,education and culture.The discourse interacted with the editorial of Da Gongbao and then created profound and public opinion space.By focusing on the two cases we can find that in 1930s public opinion began to break up totally and absolutely.Firstly,the writers of the column Weekend Review formed their identity by thinking of being responsible for the nation-state and tried to reconstruct social centre. On the contrary,the writers of the column of Free Talking agued the literati were immoral and useless and they began to deny their social value and imagined their statue on the edge of society.Secondly,most of the writers of Weekend Review serviced for universities and institutes and had the identity of scholar.Most of them had study experience in America and Europe and enjoyed bourgeois live style.But most of the writers of Free Talking were producers of cultural publishing industry far from academic system.Some of them are free writers without stable job and their life was similar to bohemia wandering in big city.Some of them had studied in Japan and accepted the revolution discourse and thinking style.Thirdly, as to the thought source of public opinion and the base of argument,the writers of Weekend Review had various professional background such as political science,sociology,literature,economics and law.Their thought source was relatively abundant and they knew well about political public life and political practice of America and Europe.They usually made use of such source to thinking about the Chinese problems and their opinion rooted from rational tradition of the European enlightenment movement.But most of the writers of Free Talking were literature intellectuals and were more interested in the Chinese tradition and the literature and art of the west world.Their style discussing on the political phenomenon and social cultural phenomenon was vividly and visual.They take it for granted that they were the representative of the mass and the bottom.So the mass will was the important sprit of Free Talking.Lastly,as to the discourse style,Weekend Review was rational and dialoguing and so it emphasized the progressive and helpful manner to publish commentary.Free Talking was really free in speaking manner and could not be defined in some special style.It seemed as the writers were angry and scold but at the same time maybe they were smiling and playing a joke.By the comparison of the two columns and their connected conditions, maybe we can draw some conclusions.The development and quality of public opinion is decided someway by the mature degree of academy community.At the same time,public opinion in modern China can not escape from the limitation or protection of political power.The relation between opinion and power is very complicated and special.In another way,public opinion is related with the mind and will of intellectuals closely.In fact,both the writers of Weekend Review and Free Talking had not political plan as organizing party on the base of opinion space.Their daily life were so different and far from the life of the mass and outback people.Very strangely,they established close communication with the two parties with power and guns.Although what they said in the two columns had some social influence they could not change the political culture and social life totally.Maybe because of such reasons,some writers of Weekend Review directly went to Nanking(南京) and became officials of the government and engaged in factual politics and some of the writers of Free Talking went to Vanan(延安) and obeyed to the leading of CCP.Public opinion in modern China which seemed as strong as that it could make the state hopefully also could make it helpless was doomed to be tragic and vain. Such factors as the immature civil society,the powerless social movement, the cruel party politics and the low-grade education,etc lead to the failure of the public opinion and intellectuals groups.The introduction mainly discusses the key question of the paper,the study topic,the study approach and scholarship.The first chapter focuses on the historical tradition,the modern form and the self-understanding of public opinion in modern China.At the same time,it is important to look for the relation between opinion and Qingyi(清议),especially how the Qingyi(清议) changed into public opinion step by step.This part also pays attention to intellectuals’ understanding of public opinion in 1930s,including the different judgment of the role of public opinion and its reasons.The second chapter reconstructs the public space which offers the expressing space of public opinion.It aims to describe the historical course how the cultural and publishing space which includes Da Gongbao Newspaper(《大公报》),Independent Review(《独立评论》) and Shenbao Newspaper(《申报》) is produced by journalists and intellectuals.The third chapter takes the intellectuals who produce the public opinion as the study object.For example,it discusses the tension and compromise between academy and politics for intellectuals in universities in Beijing.It also discusses the self-consciousness and self-image of left-wing intellectuals in Shanghai.At last it discusses the conflict and mutualism between public opinion and power structure.The fourth chapter takes publication in the two columns of Hushi(胡适) and Luxun(鲁迅) as case to analyze so as to find the relation among reason(理性),common will(民意) and public opinion.At the same time it analyzes the discussing topic and thought source of public opinion.The fifth chapter analyzes the thinking manners and discourse types of Weekend Review and Free Talking and aims to reconstruct the inner relation between them.The conclusion part describes the characteristic of public opinion in modern China and its limitations.更多还原