左东岭 首都师范大学
Zuo, Dongling, Capital Normal University
原文Original
中国古代文学研究技术化的陷阱
大约从20世纪90年代初期，中国古代文学研究界逐渐把学术规范的讨论作为一个重要的问题加以探讨，经过十余年来学界同仁的共同努力，目前学者们的规范意识的确有了明显的加强，并逐渐变成一种学术常识与官方规定，如果说这一阶段古代文学的研究有什么进展与改变的话，规范意识的加强可能是最为显著的特征之一。这些规范的讲究的确体现了学术研究的进展或者叫做学术规范的建构，是现代学术品格的鲜明体现。拿当今的学术论文与20年前的相比，可以非常容易地看出它们属于不同学术阶段。但是在此一过程中所产生的并不全都是令人振奋的正面效应，规范化的另一面其实就是突出的技术化的体现。在某种意义上，没有技术规范就成不了学术规范，既然学术研究是一种专业操作，当然必须掌握相关的研究技术。
这是最为基本的职业训练，许多人由于缺乏这种技术训练而草率进入古代文学领域，从而破坏了学科规范与降低了专业的水平。眼下流行的所谓学术明星，将戏说当学术，把猜测当考证，认知识为学问，说到底还是没有弄清学术为何物的规范意识的淡漠，这也是学术界还要继续进行规范强调的原因。但是，文学研究并不能仅靠规范化解决所有问题，因为技术化的本质其实就是模式化与统一化，它是以学术的市场化作为基本前提的。但是过于追求技术化也会造成研究的平面化与僵硬化，从而导致研究的简单化与琐碎化。文学这个领域是最讲究感性化、个性化、独特性与生动性的，过于技术化的模式追求大大减弱了这些文学研究最为重要的特性，从而使古代文学的研究在规范化的同时却失去了它最宝贵的创造性与生动性。在这里，规范性与创造性、技术性与生动性产生了严重的抵牾。就目前我所接触到的情况看，起码在下述三个方面已经由于技术化的追求而导致了文学研究中更为重要的学术特性的缺失。
一是技术化的客观性讲究所造成的人文精神的缺失。二是考据的技术化倾向与理性思辨的缺失。三是研究证据的板重臃肿与可读性的缺失。
译文Translation
The Fallacy of the Mechanization of Classical Chinese Literature Studies
Starting from the early 1990s the Chinese scholars doing research in the area of classical Chinese literature started to gradually pay more attention to the discussion of the standardization of scholarship, and after more than 10 years the efforts of the colleagues have shown the result that the awareness of the standards of most scholars has visibly been intensified, and gradually it has become a kind of scholarly common sense and official definition. If we say that there is some progress and change in the field of classical literature in this period, then the heightened awareness of standardization is probably the most outstanding factor. The emphasis on these standards has certainly shown a progress in this field, it can also be seen as the establishment of academic standards, and this is the manifestation of the features of a modern academic discipline. If we compare the academic papers of today with those from 20 years ago, we can easily see that they are from different academic periods. However, not all the results are encouraging, the other side of the standardization was in fact the emergence of a kind of mechanization (jishuhua). In some respect, if there is no technical standardization then there will be no scholarly standardization, and academic studies are a professional activity, thus one must of course command the related technique of research.
This technical equipment is the most basic professional training. Many people lack this technical training and enter the field of classical literature, and they have thus destroyed the standards of the discipline and lowered the level of the profession. The so-called star scholars who are very popular today sell playful chatting for scholarship, they mix conjectures with textual research and simple knowledge with real learning. They have a flimsy awareness of the standards, and in the end they do not understand what scholarship really is, and for this reason the academic world must continue to emphasize standardization. However, the research of literature cannot only rely on the standardization to solve all problems, because the essence of mechanization is in fact a kind of patterning (moshihua) and unification, and its basic precondition is the commercialization of scholarship. But the exaggerated pursuit of mechanization will lead to the shallowness and numb rigidness of the research, and it will lead to the simplification and trivializing of scholarship. The area of literature must foremost emphasize pathos, individuality, uniqueness and vivacity, overly mechanic and standardized pursuits will greatly weaken the most important features of these literary studies, and thus these studies will at the same time be more standardized but also will lose their precious creativity and vivacity. Here standardization and creativity, mechanization and vivacity come into a serious conflict. As to the situation which I can discern from my experiences today, at least in the following three areas the pursuit of mechanization has already lead to the fact that the research of literature has lost its more important academic features:
First, the emphasis on the objectivity within mechanization has led to the loss of a humane spirit (renwen jingshen). Second, the mechanization of textual research has tended to lead to a loss of reasonable speculation. Third, the exaggerated apparatus of referential evidence has tended to make text unreadable.