Debate drafts of classical literature and modern literature

In the process of "creation" of China's modern literature, the power of "concept" cannot be underestimated. When we open any book "History of Modern Literature in China" at home and abroad, we may have different positions, different opinions and even tit for tat on specific issues, such as the evaluation of writers and works, and the judgment of ideological trends and schools. However, it is not difficult to find that they follow a certain "self-evident" premise and consciously turn it into a "meta-language" to describe history. Analyzing this premise is a very complicated task, because it involves a rather complicated "discourse device" about "modernity". Naoki Sakai pointed out: "The pre-modern-modern-post-modern sequence implies a time sequence, which we must remember has always been combined with the geopolitical structure of the modern world. As we all know, this order is basically the historical framework of the nineteenth century, through which people can understand the position of nationality, culture, tradition and race in this system. Postmodernism, as the last item in this sequence, has only recently appeared, but the pairing and combination of "pre-modernity" and "modernity" in history and geopolitics has become one of the main organizational tools of intellectual discourse. Therefore, the emergence of this mysterious third party may not prove the transfer from one stage to another, but the change of our discourse paradigm; The result of this change is what we used to think was unquestionable historical divination? Wo Renying? Do you want to resign? Make noise? I'm a fan of chewing shrubs. I'm sorry, but I don't know. Are you still holding on? Drag? Panic? What happened to your hip? Keep? Take a shower? How thin! ? In the post-modern context, I hope to enter and decompose this "device" from the perspective of "the establishment of modern literature in China" in future research. However, first of all, it can be clearly pointed out that the so-called "modern literary concept" has played an important role in it.

The historical narration of China's modern literature attaches great importance to the role of "modern literary ideas", and almost all the History of Modern Literature in China focuses on the change of literary ideas when discussing the May 4th literary revolution. This historical narrative not only corresponds to Liang Qichao's exposition on the gradual change from artifacts to systems from the late Qing Dynasty to the Republic of China, [2] as an important part of the new ideological trend, the "literary revolution" itself is a remarkable symbol of social and cultural changes; It not only reveals the inherent characteristics of the "cultural-knowledge approach" of Yu-sheng Lin's May 4th thought, [3] to borrow Lu Xun's statement, "the literature that listens will be branded with ideas and concepts first [4], and more importantly, it reveals some" historical moments "in the process of" creation "of modern literature in China for further analysis. [5] In fact, as the historical narrative basis of modern literature in China, the concept of modern literature also constitutes its legal basis. The two generate and support each other, forming a locked and complete authoritative historical discourse chain. Without the interpretation of authoritative historical discourse, we can't get other conclusions about this history.

As we all know, modern literature in China has been called "new literature" since its birth, but we still need to ask why it is "new", that is, what is the legal basis for establishing "new literature". The significance of this problem lies in that it not only defines "new literature" in the opposite sense to the so-called "old literature", but also requires "new literature" to show the characteristics of facing the future at present. From 1920 to 65438+ 10, Zhou Zuoren used the concept of "modernity" twice in a speech entitled "Requirements of New Literature". He believes that "human literature" and "human literature" are the most important features of "modern literature" and the direction that "new literature" needs to work hard. [6] This means that "new literature" does not necessarily have the priority to become "modern literature". If it wants to prove that it naturally has priority, it must show that the future development direction is closely related to the character of "modern literature" and even integrated with it. This is a typical "modernity" attitude. When analyzing the relationship between enlightenment and modernity, Foucault pointed out: "The analysis of enlightenment-defining history as the transition of human beings to adulthood-links contemporary reality with the whole movement and its basic direction. However, it also shows how each individual is responsible for the whole process in a specific way at this specific historical moment. " [7] In his analysis, "enlightenment" is a "modern attitude". The significance of individual existence and work is related to the specific moment of its existence-modernity, and this connection is related to the overall history and its communication. Hey? Kang tomb? What do you think of this season? S yarn sends poverty? The significance of the existence of "new literature" lies in its relationship with the character of "modern literature", which is not only the future trend, but also undecided, so it existed more as a problem at that time.

This problem has been puzzling the new literature since the May 4th Movement. 1926, when it was generally believed that new literature had gained a solid position in the literary world, Liang Shiqiu was still worried that the new literature society would "decline for a long time and return to a solid foundation." [8] To solve this problem fundamentally, we still need to obey the design of the enlightenment plan, first of all, the change of "concept" ("thinking"). As Kant wrote in Answer a Question: What is Enlightenment? "The real change of thinking mode" is regarded as the central link of "enlightenment". [9] When discussing "the task of modern literature", Liang Shiqiu made it clear: "I think what China literature should reform most is literary thought, or the basic concept of literature. What is literature? What is the task of literature? How did China answer these questions in the past? Are we satisfied with the previous answer now? If not satisfied, how to correct it? I think these problems should be the central issues of the new literature movement. " [10] However, his advocacy still stays in theoretical research and has not been implemented at a concrete and operational level.

1935, Liangyou Book Company published ten volumes of China New Literature Department (the first decade: 19 17- 1927) to make a historical orientation for the "great decade". This is the first time to answer the above questions satisfactorily through review and summary. At that time, Literature, a large-scale publication in Shanghai, published two major projects in the near future, which was juxtaposed with Universal Library edited by Zheng Zhenduo: "On the one hand, Daxi will create the largest collection of works, but on the other hand, it has the intention of preserving documents. Although the new literature series is a form of anthology, its plan is that each volume has a long preface (about 20 thousand words), which has the nature of literary history. This intention is quite right. However, because the works are compiled by different people, it is inevitable that everyone has different views. Therefore, if someone wants to regard the new literary series as a new literary history, he will not be satisfied. However, if we can get a glimpse of the whole literary world in the first ten years of the "New Literature Movement" from this huge "anthology", because it was compiled by different people, it is actually ubiquitous, so maybe he will be satisfied. The editing plan of "New Literature Series" is also a rare great attempt in recent years. This book has ten volumes ... and a long preface by Mr. Cai Yuanpei at the beginning. If we take the troupe as an analogy, we might as well say that Daxili's' roles' are well matched. " It may be difficult for people to understand that in the 1930s, when political, cultural and literary positions were seriously divided, writers from different camps, such as Hu Shi, Zhou Zuoren, Lu Xun, Mao Dun, and Zheng, could easily cross the border of attitudes and gather in a common cause. Of course, we can't simply attribute the reason to the "masterpiece" of Liangyou Book Company and its young editor Zhao Jiabi. The problem is that this profession has not bridged their differences. In Random Thoughts on Editing and Selection written by the company for advertising purposes, Yu Dafu and Zheng continued to fight for "masterpieces", while Zhou Zuoren conveyed a few criticisms from left-wing literati: "I think literature is literature, and there is no distinction between masterpieces and essays." [12] However, the differences did not prevent them from coming together and compiling a "big family", that is to say, there is some higher criterion behind the differences. Zhao Jiabi made it very clear in the preface to the publication of "Da Xi": "In some domestic ideological circles, I really want to go back to today before the May 4th Movement. This work is not meaningless. " 〖 13〗

As early as the end of 1980s, Wang Hui pointed out: "The May 4th Enlightenment was composed of different and contradictory ideas and theories. However, as a unified historical movement, it actually has to find a basic spiritual strength or emotional trend, so that all kinds of complex thoughts and theories can gain some kind of' historical identity'. All historical narratives of the Enlightenment must be carried out on the basis of this' historical identity', because only in this way can we find a way to open the maze of individual theories and ideological principles, so as not to be at a loss in the hodgepodge of ideas. " As his research shows, the "May 4th" Enlightenment lacked a unified methodological basis like the European Enlightenment and an inherent historical and logical premise, but it actually formed a * * *. The reason is that "the internal unity still maintained in various theoretical contradictions is a basic attitude", and this "identity" does not exist in the logical connection of various concepts, but behind the complicated concepts, in the psychological impulse to express these different concepts, that is, in the attitude of thinkers. [14] The most vivid expression of this attitude is Hu Shi, who said in his book "The Significance of New Ideological Trend" summarizing the history of the new ideological trend movement in the past two or three years: "According to my personal observation, the fundamental significance of the new ideological trend is just a new attitude. This new attitude can be called "critical attitude". The attitude of judgment, simply put, is that everything should be re-divided into good and bad ... Nietzsche said that today's era is an era (re-evaluating all values). The word' revaluation of all values' is the best explanation for the attitude of judgment. " [15] Wang Hui is keenly aware that the most important feature of this attitude is objectivity, but it points to "value judgment" rather than "structural analysis". [16] So where do the standards for judging quality and evaluating value come from? 19 19 1, Chen Duxiu published "the defense of the crime of opposing local chronicles" in New Youth Volume 6 No.65438, pointing out that "criticizing local chronicles in traditional society is nothing more than destroying Confucianism, etiquette, national quintessence, chastity and old ethics (loyalty and filial piety). He claimed that this kind of "destruction" contains the same value standard. " Only by supporting Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science have these heinous crimes been committed. ""If you support Mr. De, you have to oppose Confucianism, ethics, old ethics and old politics. If you support Mr. Sai, you have to oppose old art and old religion. If you want to support Mr. De and Mr. Sai, you have to oppose national quintessence and old literature. " In Chen Duxiu's expression, literature occupies a particularly important position. Its internal relationship with Mr. De and Mr. Sai is manifested in opposing "old literature", and at the same time it implies a deeper meaning: "New literature" was born with the combination of "science" and "democracy". Your destiny retreats? Is it difficult? What's wrong with punishment? What happened? Is it difficult to find a tomb among tombs? What's the problem? What's the problem? Is the tomb of Natano difficult? ヵヶヶヶヶヶввヶヶヶヶヶヶヶヶヶヶヶヶヶヶ. ヵヵヵаヵヵヵヵヵаヵヵヵヵヵヵаааヵ! ? The problem is that people's understanding of "science" and "democracy" was quite different at that time. As far as pure academic theory is concerned, it is impossible to form a unified position, not to mention a series of complicated intermediate links are needed to apply the principles of "science" and "democracy" to the literary field.

In Hu Shi's appeal for literary improvement, and in Zhou Zuoren's appeal for "human literature" and "civilian literature", [18] we can indeed vaguely hear the echoes of "science" and "democracy", but this time the voice is mixed with accusations of "degeneration", "inhumanity" and "aristocratization" of traditional literature. From this point of view, it is difficult to grasp the evolution of "modern literary concept" only by analyzing the phenomenon, and it is necessary to further study the internal structure behind the phenomenon. From my humble opinion on literary improvement and literary revolution to people's literature and popular literature, it seems that the theoretical "creators" of new literature are consciously using a "negative" argument method and rhetorical strategy, the most typical of which is Hu Shi's "eight noes". Although it is still an open question whether the proposal of "Eight No's" was influenced by Pound's "Several No's" [19], Hu Shi declared: "The literary revolution I advocate is only in terms of the current situation of China literature, and has nothing to do with the new literary trend of thought in Europe and America." Because the argument of "eight noes" is based on the criticism of China's traditional literature, not to mention the negative intention clearly expressed by "saying no". Without the object of criticism and negation, it is difficult for us to imagine how the so-called "new literature" is constructed.

It can be seen that it is through this "negative" way that the May 4th New Youth tries to establish a new literary subject identity. The most striking feature of this new literary discipline is its fracture and difference from traditional literature. Its identity is based on a series of binary opposites in literature and language: old/new, ancient/modern, elegant/vulgar, dead/alive, classical Chinese/vernacular ... The choice of binary opposition mode is naturally either or, and the reason for this choice does not depend on theoretical clarification, but on the comparison between East and West. If Hu Shi only cited "Dante Luther's great achievements" as an example under "Don't avoid common sayings and words" in On the Literary Revolution of Construction, then the fact that Dante wrote in dialect to fight against Latin and finally created a new national language directly realized the only purpose of his "On the Construction of New Literature": "Literature in a national language, the national language of literature". [2 1] In Hu Shi's exposition, German Luther, Italian Dante, British Chaucer ... these westerners once made "great achievements", which not only pointed out the future direction of China's new literature development, but also provided an opportunity to reinterpret the history of China literature. Luther "translated the Old Testament into German", which inspired him to "the history of vernacular literature". Later, when commenting on Fifty Years of China Literature, Hu Shi also paid special attention to "the translations of Yan Fu and Lin Shu". In addition to affirming that "Yan Fu was the first person to introduce western modern ideas and Lin Shu was the first person to introduce western modern literature", he even emphasized the symbolic significance of Yan Fu's and Lin Shu's translations in the transitional period of old and new literature. [22] From the perspective of comparison between the East and the West, the new literature presents an unconditional recognition of the "West", and "Western literature" plays a role in regulating, judging and guiding China's new literature. So many years later, some scholars wanted to study "China's literary theory", and made it clear: "I won't be involved in China's literary theory in the 20th century, except for the theories that critics who simply follow the tradition, because these theories are more or less influenced by the West or other aspects, such as romanticism, symbolism or Marxism. Therefore, its value and interest are far from China's traditional literary theory, which has formed a basically independent critical concept. " [23] But this kind of "identity" is not as simple as "total westernization" as people usually think, it involves a more complicated historical picture of "modernity" between the East and the West.

When discussing "modern Japanese literature", Sanhao pointed out: "Japanese literature, like the product of any other country or region, can only be defined when it is related to the boundary between time and space. It may obviously be' Japanese'; But its composition does not exist in the ontological sense of holiness and absolute purity and purity. We must keep this in mind, that is, we must adhere to the concretization and specialization of the western paradigm. " [24] If "Japanese" in the above words is replaced by "China", it is also instructive. In the framework of comparison, China's new literature establishes the internal identity of the subject through negation, and its "time-space boundary" is embodied in two aspects. First, a series of binary opposites in literature are linked with the contrast between eastern and western cultures, and the dispute between the old and the new becomes the distinction between the east and the west; The second is to regard the concept of "evolution" as the basic time consciousness in the history of literature, and the dispute between the old and the new becomes the difference between progress and backwardness. This makes "new literature" go beyond the limitations of literary field and appeal its legitimacy to a broader "modernity" discourse structure. Regardless of new/old, East/West, or progress/backwardness, these binary opposites are actually subordinate to the exquisite "discourse device" mentioned above. This "device" is just like Naoki Sakai's analysis: "If you don't refer to the pairing of pre-modernity and modernity, you can't understand the term' modernity'. From a historical perspective,' modernity' is basically opposite to its historical forerunner; From the geopolitical point of view, it contrasts with non-modernity, or more specifically, with non-West. Therefore, the pairing of pre-modernity and modernity is a discourse schema, according to which a historical predicate can be translated into a geopolitical predicate, and vice versa. ..... it ruled out the possibility of pre-modern western and modern non-western coexistence ". [25] It is not difficult to understand why "new literature" gained absolute authority in the confrontation with old literature only by describing the historical facts of "western literature" without too many theoretical explanations. As literature is brought into the overall design of modernity, the concept of "modern literature" implied in specific historical narrative, as an oral but unspoken discourse, continues to play a role in the process of mutual transformation between theoretical narrative and historical narrative.

From "Cultural Debate between East and West" to "Science and Outlook on Life", a series of drastic and influential changes have taken place in China's ideological situation in modern times. "How did the debate on modern culture in China transition from the basic form of historical narrative to the basic form of theoretical narrative? How does the historical narrative of the May 4th Enlightenment inherently depend on meta-narrative, and how does the meta-narrative of the debate between science and metaphysics depend on the historical narrative of modernity? How does China's modern thought question modernity and rely on the historical narrative of modernity to promote the reconstruction of modern knowledge system? How is the structure of China's modern knowledge system born out of the narrative of history and culture? " [26] Wang Hui's series of questions remind us that in the process of constructing new literature, if there are two forms of theoretical narrative and historical narrative, what kind of historical relationship are they in? How does this historical relationship determine the future direction of new literature? Due to the lack of a clear theoretical definition of new literature, the attitude of identity will inevitably be divided when the negative object is gradually declining, and the "modern literary concept" originally wrapped in specific historical facts also presents internal contradictions and tensions. This is the so-called "split of the new literary camp" in the history of literature, but this split has always occurred in "modern literature", which is manifested in the internal differences of "modernity" and the arguments of various "modern views", showing us the diversity and possibility of "modern literary views" itself. Once the opponent's strength is enhanced again, it may endanger the legitimacy of "new literature", so the separatist forces can regroup and gain attitude recognition in the struggle with the opposite.

This answers the questions raised by the publication of new literature series. In the early 1930s, the May 4th New Literature was severely challenged from many aspects, such as the rise of revolutionary literature, the movement of respecting Confucius and reading classics, and even the "citation system" advocated by Lin Yutang ... All kinds of forces pointed their finger at the May 4th New Literature. [27] The editing and publishing of Da Xi just provides an opportunity to meet these challenges. This set of books tries to defend the legitimacy of "new literature", not only through the collection of important theories and creations, but also through the use of quite strategic editing skills, and even in the selection and arrangement of historical documents. As someone pointed out, the success of "New Literature Series" in editing science lies in creating a unique road to transform the study of literary historians into the study of literary historians. [28] His carefully written "Introduction", carefully arranged works, historical materials and authoritative editors, * * * have jointly formed a force to explain history and painted a picture of the occurrence of "Modern China Literature" that has influenced so far.