王家新 中国人民大学
Wang, Jiaxin, Renmin University of China
原文Original
“对中国的执迷”与“世界文学”的视野
怎样评价近百年来的中国现代文学？与国内学者的视角明显不同，德国汉学家顾彬（Wolfgang Kübin）教授在其《二十世纪中国文学史》中，明确使用了“世界文学”这样的概念。
显然，这出自歌德当年提出的“世界文学”（Weltliteratue）。歌德的“世界文学”难以定义而又影响深远。我的理解是：在歌德那里，“世界文学”并不是各民族文学的总和，它意味的是对国别、民族和地方性的超越，从而达到某种普遍性，使民族的语言创造成为“人类共有的精神财富”。
问题就在于怎样来看这种“世界文学”的“标准”，以及我们是否应该把中国文学置于这样的尺度下评价。对此持质疑态度的人，无非是说它暗含了“欧洲中心主义”或“西方中心主义”。有人甚至因此指责顾彬“傲慢”。
实际上，在顾彬那里，正如在歌德那里，“世界文学”并不是一个以欧洲为中心的观念。我们知道，歌德吸收了很多中国古典哲学和诗歌的东西。对顾彬来说，他熟悉西方文学，但他也长期研究中国文学，更重要的是，他深知屈原、李白、杜甫、曹雪芹、鲁迅达到了一个怎样的高度。这就是他的标准。
作为一个德国学者，顾彬先生看中国文学肯定有他自己的角度，但他的视野已远远超出了一般西方人的视野，而体现了一种中西视野的融合。他的“世界文学”不是以西方为中心的，更不是由“资本主义的扩张”决定的。他的“世界文学”，就是由不同时代和国家的优秀文学所形成的、并在当今世界为人们所普遍认同的文学。他的“世界文学”的视野，早已把“从《诗经》到鲁迅”纳入其内。
这里，我要特意提到顾彬对鲁迅的推崇和参照。这足以印证顾彬的“世界文学”标准是从人类的全部优秀文学包括中国文学中来的。顾彬并没有把卡夫卡或博尔赫斯“强加”到中国作家头上，他是以鲁迅这样的作家为主要参照，力求在一个市场化的、大众消费的时代重树文学本身的标准。
当然，顾彬拥有的并不仅仅是鲁迅。既然是以“世界文学”的眼光来看中国文学，德语文学、西方文学就不可避免地会成为参照。张莉在她的文章中批评说：“他（顾彬）将‘世界文学’当作一个可以用来衡量中国文学是否先进的唯一根据，而不是把中国文学当作一个可以产生它自身意义及价值的历史过程去研究和讨论。这值得讨论。”
“把中国文学当作一个可以产生它自身意义及价值的历史过程去研究和讨论”，这在考察中国古典文学时可以，但在考察中国现代文学时就“值得讨论”，因为在实际上正如顾彬所说：“20世纪的中国文学如果脱离了西方语境就无法被理解”。这样看问题，我认为正出于对历史的尊重。我想，这已是一个常识，没有西方的冲击、刺激和影响，“现代性”就不可能在中国发生。中国现代文学从一开始就把自身置于“世界文学”的语境中了。
因此，为了深入把握中国现代文学的来龙去脉，为了“以文学的历史之舌讲话”，我们就应当把中国文学放到一个更开阔的“世界文学”的范围中来考察，这正如我们需要以某种更具有普遍性的尺度来测度自身一样。多年来，我们已习惯了自说自话，习惯了“自己给自己打分”，但是，我们是不是生活在这个“世界”上呢？
正因为具备了这种更开阔的“世界文学”的视野，顾彬一方面“发掘中国现当代文学的价值”，另一方面也比我们很多人都更清醒地看到了它的问题和局限性所在。比如他对“对中国的执迷”（Obsession with China）的分析和批评，对于我们这些“局中人”就是一个重要的提醒。“对中国的执迷”本来出自美籍学者夏志清的《中国现代小说史》，顾彬在《二十世纪中国文学史》中援用了这一说法，并赋予了它更重要的位置和更能促使人警醒和思考的意味：“‘对中国的执迷’表示了一种整齐划一的事业，它将一切思想和行动统统纳入其中，以至于对所有不能同祖国发生关联的事情都不予考虑……（而这）和世界文学的观念相左，因为后者意味着一种超越时代和民族，所有人都能理解和对所有人都有效的文学。”
这种剖析，的确涉及到一个普遍存在的现象和问题，甚至可以说它直指中国文学的“痛处”。纵观20世纪中国文学史，“民族国家”与“启蒙救亡”成为主流叙事，除了少数例外，文学从总体上看的确已成为顾彬所说的那种“救亡工程”……这一切，使中国作家们对国家、民族、社会的道德责任感远远压过了他们的文学自觉性。纵然这种“对中国的执迷”，有着它复杂、深远的各种原因，但有一点是可以肯定的，那就是它深深影响到中国文学的文学性和个人性，影响到它的普遍性和超越性。在这种“执迷”中，中国作家、诗人的热情和才华往往遭到了可悲的扭曲和浪费。纵观20世纪中国文学史上的众多作品，在今天看来，除了某种历史文献价值，还有多少能够“留下来”并成为“世界文学”的一部分呢？
“对中国的执迷”是一种极其复杂的文学现象，顾彬提出了他的看法，但他并没有对之简单否定。正如人们看到的，顾彬自己四十年来“将自己所有的爱都倾注到了中国文学之中”，这本身就是“对中国的执迷”的体现。通读他的《二十世纪中国文学史》，我想他并没有否定一个作家对国家和现实的关注，但他结合百年来的沉重教训，强调了文学的个体性和超越性的一面，或者说，他强调的是那种鲁迅式的自我审视和怀疑的精神，是那种鲁迅式的与自己时代、民族所保持的“反讽性距离”。
这里，我不想说顾彬给中国作家开了一副“良药”，但他的确使我们更清醒地看到了问题所在。长久以来，对一代代中国作家来说，通向文学之路即通向某种“宏大叙事”之路，但这是不是意味着对个人存在乃至文学本身的扭曲和取消呢？或者问，这种使我们曾深陷其中的“执迷”是不是妨碍了我们对存在的敞开以及对“世界文学”的敞开呢？正是在这些问题上，顾彬让我们思考。或者说，我们所付出的沉重代价让我们不能不思考。
译文Translation
‘Being Infatuated with China’ and the Horizon of ‘World Literature’
How to assess the value of Chinese modern literature as it has developed during these last hundred years? Very different from the perspective of Chinese scholars, the German sinologist Prof. Wolfgang Kubin has used the concept of “world literature” in his book A History of Chinese Literature of the 20th Century.
Obviously this concept comes from the idea of “Weltliteratur” (world literature) which was proposed by Goethe at that time, a concept which is hard to define but exerted a far-reaching influence. My understanding is this: Goethe’s “world literature” is not a collective name for all the literatures of all peoples, it rather implies the transcending of nationality, ethnicity and geographical limits, and thus arriving at a kind of universality, so that the literary creations of one nation would become “the common spiritual resources of humankind”.
The question is only of how to ascertain the “standard” of this kind of “world literature”, and whether we should place the Chinese literatures under this kind of standard in order to evaluate them. Those who doubt this standard are exactly those who see in it a form of “Euro-centrism” or “western centrism”, and some people even have pointed to the alleged “arrogance” of Prof. Kubin.
In fact, the concept of “world literature” is not an expression of Euro-centrism, neither in Prof. Kubin’s work, nor in Goethes’s imagination. We know that Goethe has absorbed many things from classical Chinese philosophy and poetry. As to Prof. Kubin, he is acquainted with western literature, but he also has studied Chinese literature for a long time, and even more important is that he knows which level Qu Yuan, Li Bai, Du Fu, Cao Xueqin and Lu Xun have reached. Exactly this is his standard.
Being a German scholar, Prof. Kubin must have his own perspective to look at Chinese literature, but his horizon already enormously exceeds the horizon of a normal westerner, and this displays a kind of merging of the horizons of China and the west. His “world literature” is not centered around Europe, and it is even less determined by the “expansion of capitalism”. His concept of “world literature” has been shaped by the outstanding literatures of many different periods and nations, and these literatures are commonly accepted by the people of today. His horizon of “world literature” has from the beginning included “the Book of Odes (Shijing) up to the works of Lu Xun”.
Here I want to mention Kubin’s admiration for and reception of Lu Xun in a special way. This might serve as a proof that Kubin’s standard of “world literature” comes from the outstanding literatures of all the peoples of the world, including the Chinese literatures. Kubin has not “forced” Kafka or Borges unto Chinese writers, but he uses writers like Lu Xun as an important reference, and he wants to establish the standard of literature itself in a time of commercialization and consumerism of the masses.
Of course, Kubin does not only know about Lu Xun. If we look at Chinese literature from the perspective of “world literature”, then German literature and the other western literatures must also be a point of reference. In her article Zhang Li says: “He (Kubin) uses the concept of ‘world literature’ as the only basis for measuring whether Chinese literature is progressive or not, and he does not explore and discuss Chinese literature as an entity which can produce its own meaning and value within its historical progress. This is a debatable approach.”
“To explore and discuss Chinese literature as an entity which can produce its own meaning and value within its historical progress”, this is possible when we study classical Chinese literature, but when we explore modern Chinese literature, this approach is “debatable”, because the fact is, as Prof. Kubin says, that “if separated from the western context the Chinese literature of the 20th century cannot be understood.” If we look at the problem from this side, then we truly respect history. I think, it is already a kind of common sense that if there would not have been the impact, stimulation and influence from the west, then “modernity” would not have happened in China. Chinese modern literature has placed itself within the context of “world literature” right from the beginning.
Therefore, if we want to deeper understand the roots and development of modern Chinese literature, and in order to “talk with the historical voice of literature”, we should really try to place Chinese literature within the broader horizon of “world literature” and explore it in this way, just like we need to measure ourselves with a more universal standard. For so many years we have been used to talk ourselves about ourselves, we have been used to “evaluate ourselves”, but are we actually living in “this world”?
Exactly because he possesses this kind of broader horizon of “world literature”, Prof. Kubin on the one hand “discovered the value of modern Chinese literature”, and on the other hand he perceives more clearly than many of us where the problems and limitations of this literature are. For example he analyzed and criticized the “obsession with China”, and this is an important reminder for us who live in the “inside”. The expression “obsession with China” actually comes from the book A History of the Modern Chinese Novel by the American Chinese scholar Xia Zhiqing (Adrian Hsia), and Prof. Kubin introduced this expression in his History of Chinese Literature in the 20th Century, giving it a more central position and more meaningful and thought-provoking interpretation: “The ‘obsession with China’ denotes a uniform and standardized project, it absorbs all thinking and behavior, and it does not show any consideration for matters that do not relate to the fatherland… and this is in conflict with the concept of world literature, because the latter implies a kind of literature that is trans-historical and trans-national, a kind of literature that is understood by all people and meaningful for all.”
This analysis in fact touches upon a universal phenomenon and problem, we even can say that it touches upon the “painful wound” of Chinese literature. In the history of the Chinese literature in the 20th century, the “people and the nation” and the “enlightenment in order to save (the country) from peril” were the mainstream narratives, and with a few exceptions the main body of literature really was what Prof. Kubin has called the “project of saving from peril” … all these things effected that the moral responsibility to the state, to the people and to society which Chinese writers felt at that time by far outweighed their literary consciousness.
Even if this “obsession with China” has complicated and deep-seated reasons, we must acknowledge one thing, namely that it deeply influenced the literariness (wenxuexing) and individuality of Chinese literature, it influenced its universality and transcendence. Because of this “obsession” the enthusiasm and talent of Chinese writers and poets was often sadly distorted and wasted. If we look at the whole body of the many works throughout the history of Chinese literature in the 20th century, today we may ask from our perspective: except for some historical documentary value, how many works can really be “preserved” and can become a part of “world literature”? The “obsession with China” is an extremely complicated phenomenon of literature. Prof. Kubin presented his opinion, but he did not simply deny this phenomenon. As all have seen, during the past 40 years Prof. Kubin “has concentrated all his love on Chinese literature,” and this in itself is also an expression of “obsession with China”. After reading his History of Chinese Literature in the 20th Century, I think that he does not object to the fact that a writer is concerned about the state and about practical things, but he integrates the hard lessons of the last century and emphasizes the individuality and transcendence of literature, or in other words, what he emphasizes is the self-scrutiny and spirit of skepticism in the style of Lu Xun, it is the “ironical distance” which Lu Xun kept to his own time and his own people.
Here I do not want to say that Prof. Kubin has given the “remedy” for the problems of Chinese writers, but he indeed lets us see more clearly where the problems are. For a long time one generation of Chinese writers after the other has believed that the road to literature was also the road to a “great narrative”, but does this not imply that the existence of the individual is denied or that literature itself is distorted? Or in other words, has this “obsession with China” in which we have been trapped so profoundly prevented us from be open to our existence and prevented us from being open to “world literature”? Exactly this is where Prof. Kubin makes us think and reflect. We may also say that the high price we paid must force us to think.