温儒敏 北京大学
Wen, Rumin, Peking University
原文Original
再谈文学研究中的“汉学心态”
不久前我在一篇文章中曾经提出“汉学心态”这个说法，引起某些议论。我从来没有任何否定汉学的意思。本人始终认为，汉学很重要，是可供本土学科发展借鉴的重要的学术资源。我只是强调借鉴不是套用，那种对汉学盲目崇拜，甚至要当作本土的学术标准或者摹本的心态，并不利于学科的健康发展。我提出警惕所谓“汉学心态”，主要是针对文学研究中空泛的学风，并非指向汉学。
汉学研究其理论方法，以及研究的动机、动力，离不开西方的学术背景。如果完全不考虑这些，拿来就用，甚至就以此为标准，为时尚，为风气，心态和姿态都和海外汉学家差不多了，“身份”问题也出现了。所谓“汉学心态”，不一定说它就是崇洋迷外，但起码没有过滤与选择，是一种盲目的“逐新”。“汉学心态”就是蜂拥“跟进”，是学界的“追星”，失去了自己的学术个性与自信。许多“仿汉学”的文章，共同的毛病是“隔”，缺少分寸感，缺少对历史的同情之理解。汉学的套路并非不可借用，但总还要有自己的理解与投入，有自主创新，而不是简单克隆。
所谓“汉学心态”与“仿汉学”风气，在“泛文化研究”与“现代性”的过度阐释方面表现尤为突出。比如把“现代性”的追求解释为20世纪中国文学的唯一基本主题，一网打尽；又比如，把带有浓厚西方色彩的“现代性”作为试金石，用于衡量和剪裁中国文学的丰富史实，等等，虽然不无新意，但这是先入为主，刻意“翻新”。此类研究大而无当，总是从概念到概念，无视文学创作的情感、想象、审美个性等问题。在某些“后现代”的论作那里，文学性更是被放逐，文本分析只是作为社会变迁、文化冲突的例证，文学变成可以任意按社会学心理学理论拆解的冷冰冰死物，变成支持都市文化、公共空间、民族认同、性别政治等问题阐解的材料。这类“仿汉学”研究并未能真正提升现当代文学研究的品格。
“泛文化研究”中的“借喻式解读”，也是“仿汉学”文章中常见的路子。西方汉学家在文化研究方面不无成功，这种研究思路传入中国之后，拓展了现当代文学研究的疆域，也增加了研究的活力。但是某些模仿和跟进汉学路数的文章，讨论文化研究的问题，总是很空泛，好像不是中国学者在写有关中国文学的文章，倒像是大洋彼岸的汉学家在遥看中国现象，一叶障目，不见泰山。为了理论“炫耀”，或重在“可操作性”，结果就会舍本逐末，文学分析反倒成了证明理论成立的材料，类似我们以前所厌弃的“庸俗社会学”的研究，远离了文学。
总之，我们要尊重汉学，引进汉学，研究汉学，但不宜把汉学当成本土的学术标准。我们可以借鉴外来的学问，但是问题的发现、问题的建构和方法的选择，应该建立在自己扎实研究的基础之上。
译文Translation
Reviewing the ‘Sinological Attitude’ of Literature Studies
Not long ago I have mentioned the “sinological attitude” in one of my articles, and this has evoked some discussion. I have never denied the meaning of sinology, I personally always believe in the value of sinology, since it can provide the native disciplines with important scholarily resources that they can use for reference (jiejian). I only want to emphasize that “using for reference” does not mean “apply mechanically” (taoyong). There is a kind of blind admiration for sinology, even to the extent that it should be the standard or model for native (Chinese) scholarship, but this attitude is not beneficial for a healthy development of the local disciplines. Thus when I came up with a warning against a “sinological attitude” it was mainly directed against a certain inflated style of learning within literature studies, and it was not an attack against sinology.
The studies and methods of sinology, its study motives and incentives are all linked to the academic background of western scholars. If we do not consider these and just take and use everything, or if we even see this as the standard, as fashionable and trendy, then the attitude and position would be almost the same as that of foreign scholars of sinology, and that would prompt the question of “identity” (shenfen). The “sinological attitude” is perhaps non equal to “blind admiration for what is western and foreign”, but at least it is a lack of filtering and of selective choice, it is a kind of blindly “pursuing newness”. The “sinological attitude” means to “follow up” like a crowd, it is the “search for the stars” in the academic world, and it is to lose one’s own academic style and to have no self-confidence. The common shortcoming of many articles that “imitate sinology” is that they separate; they lack measure and a sympathetic understanding of history. The standards of sinology are good for the use as a reference, but we always need to have our own understanding and commitment, we should have sovereign creativity and not adopt a style of simple “cloning”.
The “sinological attitude” and the style of “imitating sinology” is especially visible in the exaggerated interpretations of “cross-cultural studies” (fan wenhua yanjiu) and “modernity”. For example to see the pursuit of “modernity” as the only theme of Chinese literature in the 20th century as universally applicable method. Or to use the heavily westernized concept of “modernity” as a touchstone which can measure and trim down the rich historical facts of Chinese literature etc. Even if there is some innovation in these methods, they are still biased and bent on “making it new”. These researches are empty, careless and too theoretical; they neglect the feelings, imaginations and esthetics of poetry. In those “postmodern” articles the poetic elements are even more neglected, literary analysis is only an example of social change and cultural conflict. Literature has become a dead entity that can be changed at will according to the deconstructions of sociology and psychology; it has become the material which has to be interpreted so as to support urbanization, questions of public space, national identity, gender policy etc. This kind of “imitating sinology” research will by no means be helpful to raise the standards of the study of modern literature.
The “referential interpretation” of “cross-cultural research” is a method which is often used in the articles of the “imitating sinology” style. Western sinologists are usually very accomplished in the field of culture studies, and after their thinking had entered China, it opened up the horizon of modern literature studies, which also enriched the vigor of our scholarship. But some articles that imitate and copy the style of sinology and so discuss cultural questions are usually very empty and shallow, it is not as if a Chinese scholar would write an article on Chinese literature, but rather looks like a sinologist from overseas who perceives China from a far distance, some details are overemphasized, and the whole picture is out of sight. They want to “be brilliant” with a theory or only see the “practicality”, and the result is that they give up the basis and run after details. Thus literary analysis has become the material to proof some theories, similar to the “shallow sociology” research which we felt was so disgusting some time earlier, all these things are far from literature.
Finally I think, we want to respect sinology, we want to introduce sinology to China and do sinological research, but it is not suitable that sinology becomes the standard of native (Chinese) academic studies. We can use imported knowledge as a source of reference, but the emergence and construction of a problem and the method to study should be based on the foundation of our own solid research.