鲁迅颠覆了国民性话语么?

Does Lu Xun Subvert the Discourse of National Character?

本文通过回应贺玉高的《国民性论争与当代知识界的二元对立思维》一文,并结合对刘禾的国民性话语批判的再批判,阐发了对国民性论争的最新看法。首先,本文回应了贺玉高关于刘禾没有批评鲁迅的说法,指出刘禾反复强调传教士国民性话语对鲁迅的支配性影响,甚至断言鲁迅笔下的阿Q'一字不改地演出了'传教士书写的国民性'剧本',本身就是对鲁迅艺术创造性的彻底否定。其次,文章反驳了刘禾关于追随鲁迅批评国民性的批评家们充当了国民劣根性看客的观点,指出:阿Q是鲁迅塑造的艺术形象,不等于现实中或幻灯片中盲目的看客。第三,文章重点批驳了刘禾和贺玉高关于鲁迅对国民性话语进行了成功颠覆的观点,指出由于刘禾把西方国民性话语对鲁迅的支配性影响强调到了极端程度,因此完全否定了鲁迅对国民性话语的超越可能性,同时她把超越的原因归之于叙事人的识字能力也十分荒谬。第四,文章质疑了刘禾所秉持的极端后现代主义立场和知识论虚无主义,指出刘禾文章不是充满'张力'而是充满矛盾。最后,文章对贺玉高关于中国启蒙知识分子二元对立的批评进行了反批评,指出:在没有澄清'启蒙主义''殖民主义'等概念情况下,贺玉高没有也不可能告诉我们启蒙和殖民主义到底是什么关系,这使得他对启蒙的批评变得无的放矢。

The author tries to elucidate his views on the debate concerning national character by responding to He Yugao and Liu He’s related papers.Firstly,the author disagrees with He Yugao’s argument that Liu He fails to criticize Lu Xun by pointing out Liu’s denial of Lu Xun’s artistic creativity.Liu’s denial is shown in herrepeated highlight of the dominating impact from the missionary discourse of national character and she goes even further to claim that Lu Xun’s Ah Q'gives a verbatim performance'of the national character script.Secondly,the author rebuts Liu’s claim that critics in line with Lu Xun on the national character served as bystanders of the flawed national character.Thirdly,this paper refutes Liu He and He Yugao’s view that Lu Xun has successfully subverted the discourse of national character The author points out that Liu’s overemphasis on the dominant impact of western discourse of national character on Lu Xun has forestalled him from transcending the discourse of national character.Moreover,it is groundless that she attributes the transcendence to the narrator’s literacy.Fourthly,this paper questions Liu He’s radical post-modern standpoint and epistemological nihilism and contends that what is presented in Liu He’s paper is more contradiction instead of tension.Lastly,the paper counters with He Yugao’s criticism on the dichotomy of Chinese intellectuals for enlightenment and claims that He’s criticism is groundless as he has failed to clarify the concepts of enlightenment and colonialism let alone the relationship between them.