林同奇 哈佛大学
萧延中 中国人民大学
Lin, Tongqi，Harvard University
Xiao, Yanzhong, Renmin University of China
原文Original
汉学研究与“现代性”的拯救——史华慈汉学研究的当代使命
本杰明·史华慈（Benjamin I. Schwartz）1916年出生，1999去世。他出身贫寒，父辈为俄国犹太移民，由于学业优异被保送到哈佛大学学习。1938年获哈佛大学学士学位，一度任中学代课教师。二战后参军，参加美军破译日军密码的工作，精通日文；1950年获哈佛大学博士学位后，即留校任教，直至1987年退休。
作为享有“教授之教授”美誉的国际最著名的汉学家和中国问题研究专家之一，史华慈的主要著作已被译为汉语出版，在国内产生了较大影响。史华慈生前曾富有感情地说：“有的人喜爱中国，有的人厌恨中国，但我尊敬她。”就我们的判断而言，史华慈是一位以渊博的史学家面貌出现的、具有深刻洞察力和前瞻性的思想家。在国内乃至国际学术界，目前对史华慈思想的研究还是一块有待深入开拓的学术荒漠。开掘史华慈的丰富思想资源，其总体目的是为中国迫在眉睫的思想文化建设和精神伦理建设服务。
第一、史华慈的思想紧扣人类的命运与中国的未来而展开。当今西方文化和中国文化向何处去，是他终生的中心关切，这种关切在史华慈主要是以对西方启蒙思想的全面反思为主轴而展开的。首先，史华慈对启蒙300年以来的历史道路进行了系统的反思；但更重要的是他对这一运动的主要成果，即所谓“现代性”（Modernity）所做的全面的反思。其次，这种反思涵盖了启蒙以来西方近现代主流思想的方方面面，从宇宙观（包括超越层面）、人性论、历史观、文化观，到宗教观、社会观、政治观、人生观（诸如自由、民主、法制、追求富强、民族主义、个人主义、消费主义、享乐主义、乃至全球化等现象），都在肯定其贡献的同时，着重指出其局限性、片面性和可能的严重后果。正是在这种反思以及他对中国传统思想文化的诠释过程中，他阐明或透露了自己的思想，展示了自己的思想世界。最后，提出了可称之为“史华慈式的人文主义”（或称“超越的人文主义”）作为人类发展的愿景。
第二、史华慈对西方启蒙运动和现代性的反思，与当代其他反思（如环保主义反思、女性主义反思或后现代的各种反思）比较，不仅具有独特性和连贯性，而且由于紧扣轴心文明的几大宗教和精神/伦理传统，因而独具极为广阔的多元视野；由于他紧扣人类共有的若干巨大的问题意识展开反思，使得他的又反思具有特别的深度；而他一贯采用的文化比较方法，则使他的反思具有难得的精密度。（顺便一提，史华慈能掌握和使用的语言据说达10几种之多）。因此，他的反思不仅给今天西方世界整个走向出现的偏差敲响了警钟，而且提供了纠正这些偏差所亟需的思想、精神资源。
第三、史华慈一生的精力主要用在中国思想史的研究上，他对西方启蒙的反思是经由他对中国思想文化的诠释而达成的，他对毛泽东、严复、朱熹到先秦诸子都采取别人难以企及的“韦伯式（同情的）理解”（Weberian Verstehen），因此对中国的古老传统、中国近现代传统和毛泽东所开辟的传统，都做了了大量的开拓性研究与诠释，这不仅给中西学术界提供了丰富的学术资源，而且更主要的是可以给正在迅速现代化的中国思想文化与精神道德的建设，提供了极为丰富多彩且深刻细密的本土资源。这是极为难能可贵的。
第四、史华慈的思想史研究方法论，从人类浩瀚而多样的经验出发，又归结于人类经验。这种方法的主要特点包括：（1）以问题意识为核心；（2）采取上述“韦伯式（同情的）理解”之态度；（3）以人的意识活动与情境互动为主要取径，因而他的方法正如他的思想一样具有独特的个性和深刻个内涵。史华慈这些方法论的特点及其实践，必将对中国思想史的治学方法与取径产生重大的启迪作用。
译文Translation
Sinological Research and the Salvation of “Modernity”: The Contemporary Mission of the Sinological Studies of B. Schwartz
Benjamin I Schwartz was born in 1916 and died in 1999. He came from a poor family, his forefathers were Jewish migrants from Russia, and because of his excellent study results he was sent to Harvard University for studies. In 1938 he received a B.A. from Harvard, and for some time he was a high school teacher. In the late World War II he joined the army and helped to decode the Japanese code, since he knew Japanese very well. In 1950 he received the PhD from Harvard University and remained at that school to teach until he retired in 1987.
Enjoying the reputation of being “the professor of the professors” and of being one of the internationally most renowned sinologists and experts of China questions, the more important of Schwartz’ works have already been translated into Chinese, and they have exerted some influence in China. Schwartz has once said movingly: “Some people like China, others hate China, but I respect her.” According to our judgment, Schwartz was a thinker who had vast historical knowledge and an insightful vision. The study of Schwartz’ thought needs more effort, but this has been neglected in China and also in the international academia. The general aim of tapping Schwartz’ rich spiritual resources is to make them serve the establishment of a culture of thought and the establishment of spiritual ethics in China, and this is an urgent task.
First, Schwartz’s thought is closely linked to the future of humanity and of China. He was always interested in the question where modern western culture and Chinese culture would go, and this concern was developed by Schwartz as he reflected comprehensively on the thought of western enlightenment. First, Schwartz looked back at the past 300 years of the historical development of the enlightenment, but even more importantly, he reflected on the main result of this development, namely the so-called “Modernity”. Then this reflection covered all aspects of the modernity of western thinking, the cosmology (including transcendence), the view of man, of history, of culture, of religion, of society, of politics, of life (including freedom, democracy, law, pursuit of wealth, nationalism, individualism, consumerism, hedonism, globalism etc.), all these aspects and their contributions were acknowledged, but he also pointed to their limitations, fragmentation and to possible severe results. Exactly in this reflection and in the process of interpreting the traditional Chinese culture of thought, he unfolded and revealed his own thought, he displayed his own mental world. Finally, he proposed his own vision for the future of mankind, which might by called “Schwartzian humanism” (or “transcendental humanism”).
Secondly, compared to other contemporary reflections (the views of environmentalism, feminism, postmodernism and others), the reflections of Schwartz about the enlightenment movement and modernity are not only special and consistent, they also keep close to the spiritual and ethical traditions of several religions of the core cultures, and thus he displays a very broad and multi-dimensional horizon. He consistently uses the method of the comparison of cultures, and thus his thought achieves a rare clarity and density. (By the way, Schwartz allegedly commanded and used more than 10 languages). Therefore his thought is not only an alarm bell warning against the shortcomings of the whole tendency of western scholarship today, it is also a much needed spiritual source which can correct these same shortcomings.
Third, most of Schwartz’s energy went into the study of the history of Chinese thought, and his reflection on the western enlightenment was accomplished through his interpretation of the culture of Chinese thought. He used the method of “Weberian Verstehen” (sympathetic understanding) to interpret Mao Zedong, Yan Fu, Zhu Xi and even the pre-Qin thinkers of antiquity, thus he made many ground-breaking studies and interpretations of China’s old tradition, the modern tradition, and the tradition inaugurated by Mao Zedong. Thus he provided rich academic resources for scholars in east and west, and, even more important, he can provide rich, manifold, detailed and deep local (Chinese) sources for the construction of the spiritual culture of China and for the moral culture of China, which are rapidly modernized. This aspect is extremely valuable.
Fourth, Schwartz’s historical method was to start out from the vast and manifold experiences of mankind, and in his conclusion he finally came back to human experience. The main factors of this method are: 1) the problem awareness is the center; 2) the attitude of a “Weberian Verstehen” (sympathetic understanding); 3) the main approach is the human thinking and the interaction of different situations, thus his method and his thought have unique individuality and deep meaning. The features and the practice of Schwartz’ methodology will also have an impact on the method and approach of future studies about the history of Chinese thought, and they will give us important insights.