女性何以不宜称“先生”?——性别视域下“先生”概念在近代中国的历史性变迁

Why Should Women Not Be Called“Xiansheng”?Historical Changes in the Use of“Xiansheng”from the Perspective of Gender

在前近代时期,“先生”概念谱系已经隐然存在“男女皆可用”和“仅男性可用”两种含义的矛盾,前者占主导地位,称女性为“先生”在古代社会中广泛存在。近代之际,一方面,西方“mister”的翻译和传播给“先生”概念带来全新内涵,性别因素渗入“先生”概念谱系中;另一方面,国民政府在性别平等和政治平等的诉求之下赋予“先生”概念“民间普通称呼”的政治地位,官方承认这一概念“男女皆可用”。由此,两种含义的“先生”概念产生竞逐,前者挟西方话语霸权而被社会广泛认知,后者因政府“钦定”而具有合法性,两者的角力长时间内相持不下。新中国成立后,“先生”概念的含义大幅度萎缩,成为对党外人士不分性别的称谓。改革开放之后,被西方语言体系改造后的“先生”概念再次凭借西方话语权力席卷全国,隐然成为社会主流和共识;而根植于传统的“男女皆可用”的“先生”概念被迫居于支流。女性是否适宜称“先生”的社会性争议,本质在于西方称谓体系挟话语霸权“侵入”中国传统称谓后强行植入新的性别含义。新含义固然使旧的称谓概念焕发生机,但也不可避免地破坏了传统称谓概念的内在完整性,由此造成内部新旧含义的剧烈冲突。

In pre-modern China,there was already a hidden contradiction in the usages of“xiansheng”in the genealogy of the concept that was either“available for both men and women”or“only available for men”.Women were widely referred to as“xiangsheng”in ancient China.In modern China,on the one hand,the translation and dissemination of mister have brought new connotations to the concept of“xiansheng”,and gender factors have infiltrated the traditional use of the concept of“xiansheng”.On the other hand,the Nationalist government,in pursuit of gender and political equality,endowed the concept of“xiansheng”with political status as a“common title”to be officially used“for both men and women”.As a result,there is a competition between the two usages of the concept of“xiansheng”.After the establishment of the People's Republic of China,the use of“xiansheng”was significantly reduced.In the period of economic reform and opening-up,the use of“xiansheng,”again translated from the western language system,once more swept across the country under the western influence.It not only entered the mainstream of society and acquired consensus but also sidelined the traditional use of“xiansheng”“available for both men and women”.The social controversy over whether women are suitable for the title of“xiansheng”essentially lies in the western title system that is gendered and is forcefully imposed on Chinese traditions.The new meaning can certainly revitalize the old concept.It,however,can also undermine the internal integrity of the traditional usage,resulting in a fierce internal conflict between the new and old meanings.