【作者】 朱康；

【导师】 张旭东；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2009， 博士

【副题名】鲁迅前期思想（1907-1928）与“20世纪中国”

【摘要】 在20世纪初年,作为一个中国人,鲁迅承受着一个历史的事实:欧洲的“十九世纪文明”早已经以武力的方式批判了中国的传统文明;作为一个思想者,鲁迅观察到一个思想的事实:在十九世纪末叶的欧洲产生了对于“十九世纪文明”的批判,而这种批判为即将到来的“二十世纪文明”提供了理论与精神的基础。因此,在鲁迅那里,传统文明、“十九世纪文明”与“二十世纪文明”分别作为“古文明”、“旧文明”与“新文明”,在不断递进的批判关系中,在不断递进的时间关系中,构成了一个类型学序列。在中国的传统文明与“二十世纪文明”之间,“十九世纪文明”处于一个中介的位置:相对于“二十世纪文明”,它作为“旧文明”而存在;但相对于中国的传统文明,它又获得了“新文明”的名义,而它也正作为“新文明”被接受与传播。对于鲁迅来说,这形成了一种连续的时代错乱:当欧洲凭借着“十九世纪文明”而从自己的内部描绘一个完整的世界图像,中国正在经历传统文明的最后衰落;当欧洲在十九世纪末叶发生了思潮的转变,寻找向“二十世纪文明”转换的契机,中国的寻求变革的人们却正将欧洲的“十九世纪文明”当作自己的方案。如果说在前一个过程里,中国是在一种不自觉的状态里被欧洲视作一个落后的他者:那么在后一个过程里,中国则是主动地将自己转化为欧洲的过去。在鲁迅看来,欧洲与中国之间在空间上的对立与时间上的差异必须消除,而这个消除的办法在于对未来的预先占有,即对于作为“新文明”的“二十世纪文明”的预先建构。因此,虽然鲁迅从没有放弃对于中国传统文明的批判,但在鲁迅的自我意识中,核心的问题是“十九世纪”与“二十世纪”。鲁迅为自己所设定的任务是,在“十九世纪文明”的衰落之中加入对于“十九世纪文明”的批判,避免中国复制欧洲在“十九世纪文明”中所经历的危机,同时抢先加入对“二十世纪文明”理论的争夺,为中国作为一个“二十世纪文明”的实体而做出积极的准备。“二十世纪文明”是对“十九世纪文明”批判的产物,因而在鲁迅的描述之中,“二十世纪文明”与“十九世纪文明”之间形成了一种严格的对立关系。这种对立,是“客观”与“主观”的对立,而鲁迅同时又把它表述为“梦幻”与“觉醒”的对立。从“十九世纪文明”到“二十世纪文明”,在鲁迅看来是一个从“客观梦幻之世界”到“主观与自觉之生活”的变化过程。在鲁迅的描述中,“十九世纪文明”的构成包含着“物质”与“众数”两个方面,并在政治领域展现为以下的环节:人作为“国民”而成为真正的“人”,由作为“国民”的“人”组成了一个政治性的“社会”,而这个政治社会的中心则是“国家”。在“十九世纪”,“国家”对于“人”居于绝对主体的地位,它将“人”指派为“国民”,并形成了对于“国民”的专制。“二十世纪文明”则以“非物质主义”与“个人主义”作为构成原则。鲁迅以“非物质主义”颠倒了“十九世纪文明”中“物质”对“精神”的统治关系,他不仅确定了“主观之内面精神”相对于“客观之物质世界”的优越地位,而且以“意志”(“意力”)为中心重建了“主观之内面”的形式。对于鲁迅来说,确定“意志”的地位,是树立“个人主义”的前提,而正是通过“意志”的力量,人从“十九世纪文明”中的“人”,在“二十世纪文明”中变成了真正的“个人”。“个人”与“人”之间的差别是:作为“国民”的“人”以“国家”作为价值的标准,而“个人”将自身作为意义的源泉。“个人”的出现改变了政治领域的面貌与组织形式,“十九世纪文明”中的政治性的“社会”,在“二十世纪文明”中被改造为具有“大觉”的“群”:“十九世纪文明”中的“国家”,在“二十世纪文明”中被上升为“人国”。“国家”所确立的是“国民”对它的臣服关系,而“人国”则将自身展现为“个人”自由意志的充分表达。“二十世纪文明”废黜了“十九世纪文明”中所存在的“国家”对“国民”的统治,克服了“十九世纪文明”在“物质”与“精神”之间所形成的断裂与对立,也因此它颠覆了“十九世纪文明”所描绘的“客观梦幻之世界”。“二十世纪文明”驱使“客观”向“主观”臣服,将主客观的关系全部收回为“主观”内部的关系,从而将整个生活世界转化成了自我再现、自我表现与自我认识。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the early years of the 20th century, Lu Xun, as a civilian of China, shouldered such a historical fact: the European civilization in the 19th century forced itself on the traditional Chinese one; while as a thinker, what he really observed was that there emerged a criticism of the "19th century civilization" at the end of the era, which provided the "20th century civilization" with both theoretical and spiritual basis. To Lu Xun, the traditional civilization, that of the 19th century and of the 20th century were labeled relatively as "ancient civilization", "old civilization" and "new civilization", forming a typological sequence in an on-going criticism with the passage of time.The 19th century civilization stood in between the traditional Chinese one and the 20th century civilization: it is the old one to the 20th century what a new one to, accepted and spread in the traditional Chinese civilization. To Lu Xun, what came into being was a continuous age disorder - as Europe pictured an integral world from its internal structure by means of a "19th century civilization", China, yet, witnessed that its traditional civilization was finalized. And as Europe was experiencing the transformation of thoughts at the end of 19th century, while in pursuit of a switch into the 20th century, the revolutionary individuals in China started to see the "19th century civilization" as their new prospect. China was treated unconsciously by Europe as "the other who lagged behind" in the former century, yet voluntarily served as a past to Europe during the latter process.The gap in age and the space conflict must be eradicated, as Lu Xun put it, in the way of preoccupying the future, that is, to pre-structure the "20th century civilization" to be a new one. Thus, Lu Xun never ceased to criticize the traditional Chinese civilization, though, in his self-awareness, the key issue lay between "19th century" and "20th century". He determined himself to make criticism about the 19th century civilization over its erosion, so as to prevent China from the crisis Europe had already experienced in the "19th century civilization", to get himself involved in the theories of 20th century civilization in advance and to prepare for a new China, an entity of the 20th century civilization.The 20th century civilization was supposed to be an outcome of the criticism about the 19th century civilization. Yet according to Lu Xun, these two were firmly contradictory, as he put it, a contradiction between "object" and "subject", or one that stood between "illusion" and "disillusion". The transformation from the 19th century to the 20th century was, in Lu Xun’s view, a transformation from the "objective world of illusion" to the "subjective and self-conscious life".The 19th century civilization was made up of both the "material" and the "mass", displaying itself in the political realm as follows: individual becoming the real "individual" as a "civilian", while constituting a political "society" with the "state" as its center. In the 19th century, the "state" was absolutely subjective over the "individual", assigning the latter to be a "civilian" and claiming that "the civilians and I would conform us to its will".In the 20th century, however, "non-materialism" and "individualism" are the principle of constitution. Lu Xun, via "non-materialism", finally overturned the ruling relation of material over the spirit. Not only did he confirm the superiority of "the internal spirit of subjectivity" over the "material world of objectiveness", but he also established a form of the "interior of subjectivity" with "will" as its focus. As for Lu Xun, the establishment of "will" held key to "individualism". It was due to the power of "will" that a "human" in the 19th century civilization eventually turned into a real "individual" in the 20th century civilization. Individual differed from human because a human or a civilian referred to the state as the criterion of value, and an individual took itself as the source of significance. The appearance of individual altered the image and organization of politics - the political "society" in the 19th century civilization was turned into a "mass" with "collective self-awareness"; the "state" was then escalated as a "state of individuals". In the former, people subscribed themselves to the state; but in the latter, "free will of individual" was fully displayed in the nation of individuals.Domination of the state over civilians was eradicated in the 20th century civilization. The rupture and contradiction between "material" and "spirit" in the 19th century were also overcome with the "objective world of illusion" being toppled down. The object was driven to submit to the subject in the 20th century civilization, which took back all the subjective internal relations, thus changing the whole world of life into self-recurrence, self-presentation and self-recognition.更多还原