後改革時期農村中國文化轉型－啓蒙現代性話語vs.革命現代性話語

對於改革開放後，農村文化所遭遇的重大變革與危機，是否可以定位爲經歷了一場城市對農村之「文化殖民」，肇至了農民話語權的喪失？「革命現代性」論者與「啟蒙現代性」論者各自立場不同。革命現代性論者，將馬克思主義和傳統農民小生產者之意識相結合，形塑了一種與「城市腐敗」相對立之革命農民的形象，自然對於以城市爲中心之新文化啟蒙理念及其現代化道路採取批判的態度；反之，啟蒙現代性論者雖然承認前者對農民及其文化之去主體化趨勢的批判，確實碰觸到「農民的精神及靈魂之苦楚」，但由於對過去社會主義時期那種「農民崇拜」;「農民烏托邦」的反啟蒙理性作爲餘悸猶存，因而極力抵制「城市文化殖民」或「農民失語症」等任何暗含了革命話語爲後設判準的論點，反而強調是自建政以來，中共體制一向忽視農民基本人權自由所致。儘管如此不同調，這兩種現代性話語卻都不約而同的將傳統之「人情倫理」;「宗族文化」看成是阻礙現代化的「封建糟粕」，然而弔詭的，正是在這種生命韌性極強的作爲鄉土底色的文化資源中，顯現了一種超越這兩種暗含了城鄉二元對立之現代性話語，而又有助擺脫目前中國農村文化轉型困境的契機。

關鍵字

革命現代性；啓蒙現代性；話語權；文化殖民；全球化

並列摘要

”Peasant Problem” has become a major issue that the entire Chinese Communist Party as well as the whole nation concerns closely at the present time. A large quantity of analysis and studies address this problem from its economic and political aspects, rarely are arguments constructed with culture as their chief perspective. This article attempts to focus on the very crisis of cultural transformation that China now faces in its countryside, in hope of shedding a new light on the observation of ”Three Agricultural Problems.” The main concern here is: peasants, as a ”cultural life” entity, why their subjectivity and dignity incurred such severe neglect and contempt during this current process of reform and opening-up policy? What is the connection between this situation and the loss of peasant discourse power? Did peasants fall ill of aphonia, becoming speechless, for not being able to speak for themselves in the first place, and further lacking spokesmen to voice for them, hence the grave subjectivity cover up of rural culture? Secondly, is this subjectivity cover up connected with the so-called ”cultural colonization of the city over the country?” That is to say, with the city popular consuming culture accompanied by its de-political and de-moral discourse now replacing the revolutionary discourse peasants earlier had applied to voice themselves, rural intellectual youth now find no channel to speak. Further, did this subjectivity obliteration of rural culture start after the ”Reform and opening-up policy?” Or, has it always been so, started from the very beginning of ”Founding of the Nation” after all? It was only the rapid modernization after the reform and opening-up policy that revealed this problem. In addition, will this crisis of cultural subjectivity expand to a collapse of the entire rural culture in the future when China’s modernization further deepens? Or, does this imply yet another cultural transformation, the emergence of a new form of culture bred under the context of ”globalization,” ”de-regionalization” and ”de-city and country dual opposition?”