错位的“战场”:孙中山与胡适的“新文化运动”

The Disjoint“Battlefield”:Sun Yat⁃sen and Hu Shih in the New Culture Movement

既往有关孙中山与新文化运动关系的研究,多已注意到他既有支持又有反对的矛盾态度。然而,透过态度这一表象,可以看到他对新文化运动更多是造势与借势。五四学生运动后,孙中山以自己的方式将部分新文化运动的内容与形式纳入其革命方略中。他在1920年所使用的"新文化运动"一词也有其特定含义,强调民众动员,倾向借宣传以取得革命成功,相对并不看重反传统、欧化或白话文等,与胡适所谓的"新文化运动"侧重不同,实各有抱怀,处于错位的"战场"。在后续的历史记忆中,胡适等五四当事人和国民党人多从新的历史现实出发,重新叙述孙中山与新文化运动的关系,直接或间接建构了孙中山的历史形象。

The contradictory attitudes of both support and opposition of Sun Yat⁃sen has been noticed manytimes in previous studies on the relationship between Sun Yat⁃sen and the New Cultural movement. Evenso, it can be seen from his apparent attitude that he was more likely to build momentum and borrow forcesthrough the New Culture Movement. After the May Fourth Movement, Sun Yat⁃sen incorporated parts ofthe contents and forms of the New Culture Movement into his revolutionary strategy in his own way. Like⁃wise, the term “New Cultural Movement”used by him in 1920 had a specific meaning, which empha⁃sized the mobilization of the masses and the tendency to achieve the success of the revolution by means ofpropaganda, while it relatively neglected the anti⁃tradition, Europeanization or vernacular Chinese, etc.There existed different emphases compared to Hu Shih’s so⁃called “New Culture Movement.” Actual⁃ly, Sun Yat⁃sen and Hu Shih had their respective aspirations, and they were in a disjoint “battlefield.”By the subsequent historical memory, Hu Shih and other parties of May Fourth, as well as members of theKMT re⁃narrated the relationship between Sun Yat⁃sen and the New Cultural Movement from the new his⁃torical reality, directly or indirectly constructed the image of Sun Yat⁃sen.