|
|
|
| Three Major Changes for the Mainstream Modern Chinese Literary Critics in Overseas Education Experience and Literary Debates |
| LIU Xiong-ping |
| College of Humanities and Education, Foshan University of Science and Technology, Foshan, Guangdong, 528000 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract 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”.
|
|
Received: 19 March 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 廖超慧. 中国现代文学思潮论争史[M].武汉:武汉出版社,1997.
[2] 刘炎生. 中国现代文学论争史[M].广州:广东人民出版社,1999.1-3.
[3] 吴立昌. 文学的消解与反消解:中国现代文学派别论争史论[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2004.4-15.
[4] 郑春. 从科学到文学——试论现代作家留学过程中的专业“转向”[J].文史哲,2001,(6):30-35.
[5] 高群. 中外教育文化冲突与文学革命[J].南京社会科学,2010,(6):138-143.
[6] 高晓瑞. 留学体验与1920年代文学论争[J].求索,2017,(3):177-182.
[7] 胡适. 《科学与人生观》序[A].杨犁.胡适文萃[M].北京:作家出版社,1991.704.
[8] 沈卫威. 回眸“学衡派”——文化保守主义的现代命运[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1999.228.
[9] 郭沫若. 创造十年[A].郭沫若作品经典(第5卷)[M].北京:中国华侨出版社,2000.323.
[10] 胡适. 文学进化观念与戏剧改良[A].胡适全集(第1卷)[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2003.139.
[11] 许寿裳. 我所认识的鲁迅[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1978.60-61.
[12] 郭沫若. 我怎样开始了文艺生活[J].文艺生活(海外版),1948,(6).220-222.
[13] 成仿吾. 成仿吾文集[M].济南:山东大学出版社,1985.
[14] 君素. 1929年中国关于社会科学的翻译界[A].宋原放.中国出版史料(现代部分)(第一卷下册)[M].济南:山东教育出版社,2001.448.
[15] 鲁迅.鲁迅全集(第4卷)[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1981.
[16] 倪伟. “民族”想象与国家统制——1928-1949年南京政府的文艺政策及文学运动[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2003.36.
[17] 张静庐. 中国现代出版史料(乙编)[M].北京:中华书局,1955.525-527.
[18] (美)罗伯特·A·达尔.现代政治分析[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1987.5.
[19] 朱晓进. 政治文化与中国二十世纪三十年代文学[M].北京:人民出版社,2006.99.
[20] 陈其荣,曹志平.科学基础方法论[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2004. |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 39 
