作为方法的卢梭——现代中国百年卢梭学的反思

Jean-Jacques Rousseau as "an Approach": The Rousseau Study in Modern China

法国启蒙思想家卢梭为中国学界接受的历史已逾百年。由于他的思想部分契合了中国社会现代转型的内在需求,因而产生了一种特定的以探讨中国现实问题为最终目的的卢梭研究,即作为"方法"的卢梭。这一研究范式既可能以一种"强形式"的建构方式造成对卢梭思想本身的严重误读,但也可能以一种"弱形式"的建构方式介入对中国本土社会问题的关怀与思考。作为百年中国卢梭学的重要遗产,这一范式也对中国的西学研究提供了重要启示。

The introduction of the French Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau in China can be traced back to one century ago. The embracement of Rousseau＇s works in the Chinese academia does not entail crystal comprehension of his thoughts. On the contrary, many scholars hold the opinion that our understanding of Rousseau has just initiated. This comment resonates with the fact that the research on Rousseau is commonly treated as an approach in tackling social problems in China： understanding Rousseau has been narrowed down to the means, other than the end in our studies. In this sense, to reinvestigate and evaluate Rousseau as ＂an approach＂ in academic history is therefore a reflection on ＂ reading the West＂ in the one hundred years＇ dissemination of Western knowledge to the Orient. There are several observable traits in the Chinese academia＇s studies on Rousseau： first and foremost is the spatio-temporal dislocation of the authentic Rousseau. Our reception of Rousseau took place with a backdrop of political enlightenment, which necessitated and justified the oversimplification of his ideas for practical needs：the anti-enlightenment dimension in his thought has been left out for a long time. Secondly, the translation of Rousseau＇s works in China is far from accomplished, which obstructs thorough research of his thoughts. Thirdly, the explanation of his thought has been partially influenced by overseas studies, but limited research resources cannot reflect the standard level of Rousseau studies. Finally, his thought per se is complicated, the correctly understanding of which is always a controversial topic in the Western academla. The aforementioned factors lead to the misreading of Rousseau＇s thought, and contribute to the paradigm of Rousseau as ＂Pan approach. ＂ As a defective researching methods, Rousseau as ＂an approach＂ requires careful discussion on its value rather than injudicious negation. Our studies on Rousseau in the past hundred years can be put into two forms of construction： one is a ＂strong form＂ in which Rousseau is closer to a symbol than a system of theory, thereby it developed a study of Rousseau without Rousseau. Another is a ＂weak form,＂ in which a certain viewpoint of Rousseau is overdeveloped by and brought into critiques of current problems. The latter approach is quite understandable, considering the dispute between Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, the debate among Lu Xun, Liang Shiqiu and Yu Dafu, and the reflection on Rousseau by Gu Zhun, Wang Yuanhua and Zhu Xueqin. Rousseau＇s thought has been adapted to accomplish the enlightenment project in China and tackle practical problems. The researching paradigm of Rousseau as ＂an approach＂ deserves further investigation on multiply levels. Based on the premise of being faithful to classics, it will be instructive and necessary to take Chinese context into account when studying Western learning. This research paradigm as an important legacy of the one-hundred-year learning of Rousseau will certainly provide inspiration for our future studies on Western learning.