摘要
思想流派不宜笼统指认。就全盘西化思潮中的流派而言,在历史上既存在学理相同、关系密切、相互呼应的有实际发生过程的“自在的派”(以岭南大学部分师生为代表),也存在由他人根据论点而加以类分的“外在的派”(一般以胡适、陈序经为代表)。两种“派”具有不同特征,在实际中不能协调一致,这影响着各自主张的表达和文化论战的走向,制约全盘西化思潮的历史命运。在研究全盘西化思潮时,两种“派”的区分有助于克服以后来概念化认识切割前人主张的倾向,并能凸显“论”、“派”及思潮本身的复杂性。
It is not easy to make overall generalizations about schools of thought. In the history of the movement for total Westernization, there were“natural schools”that emerged in the actual process of discussion, the members of which shared similar and often complementary theories and had close relations, as represented by some professors and students in Lingnan University. There were also“externally labeled schools,”represented by Hu Shi and Chen Xujing, which were classified by others on the basis of their theories and arguments. These two types of“school”bore different characters and often did not coincide with each other in reality. This influenced the expression of their ideas and the course of the cultural debate, and thus shaped the fate of the movement for total Westernization. A distinction between the two types of“school”may help us avoid a reductive understanding of past ideas based on later conceptualizations, and highlight the complexity of“ideas,”“schools”and intellectual movements.
出处
《历史研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2006年第1期96-113,共18页
Historical Research
