中国现代文学批评主流群体留学教育及文学论争的三次转向

Three Major Changes for the Mainstream Modern Chinese Literary Critics in Overseas Education Experience and Literary Debates

中国现代文学批评主流群体是一个拥有出国留学者占比高达百分之七十的高知群体,不仅因留学国别的不同而形成了“留日派”“留苏派”“留欧派”“留美派”,而且因不同时期接受科学教育的差异而表现出迥异的思想观念、思维方式和研究方法,这些差别使中国现代文学三十年涌现了众多风格不一的文学流派、文学社团,并引发了从未间断、形态各异的文学论争。“五四”之前留学者多接受理学、工学、农学和医学等自然科学教育,质疑挑战、追求创新的科学素质使其文学论争具有较为强烈的批判意识;“五四”之后留日、留俄苏者则多接受哲学和社会学、政治学、经济学等社会科学熏陶,针锋相对的政治立场使其文学论争充满非常激烈的斗争精神;留欧、留美者则多深受文学、历史学、艺术学和语言学等人文科学浸润,热衷自由、追求审美的人文气质使其文学论争营造出相对中和的争鸣氛围。中国现代文学批评主流群体留学教育的三次“科学”转向,促使了现代文学的三次“论争”转型,形成了“逻辑-实证”“社会-历史”和“直觉-体验”等现代文学批评范式。

The mainstream Chinese modern literary critics were mostly leading intellectuals, and 70% of them had overseas education experience. They were categorized into “returnees from Japan”, “returnees form the Soviet Union”,“the returnees from Europe”, and “returnees from the US” due to their different locations of study. Besides, they were different in ideology, way of thinking, and research approaches due to the different science education they received in different periods. These differences gave rise to many literary schools and societies of different styles in the 30 years of modern Chinese literature, and triggered constant literary debates. Those who studied abroad before the May 4th Movement mostly learned natural sciences such as science, engineering, agriculture, and medicine. They were eager to challenge tradition, question authorities, and pursue innovation. These scientific qualities equipped them with very strong critical consciousness in literary debates. Those who studied in Japan and the Soviet Union after the May 4th Movement were mostly exposed to social sciences such as philosophy, politics, and economics. Their tit-for-tat political position made them very aggressive in literary debates. Those who studied in Europe and the US were mostly dedicated to human sciences such as literature, history, art, and linguistics. They had a strong yearning for freedom and beauty.Their humanistic temperament created a relatively peaceful environment for literary debates. The three shifts to three different “sciences” of the mainstream modern Chinese literary critics in their overseas learning experience prompted the three transitions in the literary debates on modern Chinese literature, and the appearance of various modern literary criticism paradigms such as “logic-empirical study”, “society-history”, and “instinct-experience”.