論梁啟超中國文化責任說之經世意義

On Liang Qichao's Pragmatic Philosophy in China's Cultural Mission

陸冠州(Kuan-Chou Lu)

《應華學報》 7期 (2010/11) Pp. 81-129

https://doi.org/10.6391/JAC.201011.0081

摘要

此論題起於民國九年(1920)三月梁啟超(1873-1929)發表之《歐遊心影錄》「中國人對於世界文明之大責任」一節。此說反映梁啟超自歐洲遊歷後，開始重視文化在社會體系之作用，使他改變以往對社會體系運作模式的了解。歷來研究梁啟超之文化思想者，對於梁此一現象，不是從五四文化思想史之角度將其納入當時關於東西方文化的論爭，並視梁啟超為新儒家之先驅人物；就是從文化塑型(Self-formation)的觀點闡述其說之意義。鮮少論者就其經世思惟展現梁說之問題及其經世之意義，是以本文針對此一論題作出分析。
本文結論之要旨有三。第一，從文化研究的方法言，梁啟超假定文化的歷史進程為單線進化式的，亦即人類社會的發展模式皆由低級文化朝向高級文化演進，而非多線式的相對進化。其次，他著眼於東西方社會的意義系統該如何整合的問題，使其文化闡述屬於詮釋性解釋(interpretive explanation)；由於他未申論自身的文化觀點可能產生的偏誤導向，使其對中西文化的分析不出自觀的文化主位研究(emic)法。再者，他闡述的中西文化著眼於傳統理想文化(ideal cultures)層面的分析，而非對社會實際文化(real cultures)進行探討。他的文化論述乃是針對知識階層所建構的上層文化而論，其說並未將社會文化體系的次文化(Subcultures)納入其中。是以梁啟超提出的文化調和論專擇中西學術思想之優點，旨在從中尋出某些「通則」以引導中西社會之發展更趨向理性。
第二，中國文化責任說與梁啟超其他經世主張最大的不同處，除了文本形式上達成中西知識界的交流之外，還在於它涉及中國士人自古相傳的讀書傳統所建構的文化意識。這種意識滲入中國傳統士人的生活經驗外，它也讓中國士子自認對世界最高序共同利益(highest-order interest)的發展負有責任。然而中國的新式教育系統有利於學人以西學治國，梁啟超的中國文化責任說未能被其納入操作的對象，使此說在新式教育的場域缺乏文化再生產(cultural reproduction)機制的支持。
第三，從著作動機言，梁啟超的中國文化責任說，決不止為了發揚中國固有文化，而是以構思中國回應世界危機的方法，作為論述的主軸。所論之事由於關乎中國利益之維護，故能引得學人從國內的五四新文化運動，轉而注意西方近現代文化對一戰後的歐洲社會，究竟可造成何種效應。尤其當時的中國學界正處於「回皇無主」的狀態，梁書以目擊者的角度敘述世界危機，又即時地對危機作出反應，遂成為對此一時務「最先發為有力的議論者」。

關鍵字

梁啓超 ； 文化作用 ； 經世致用 ； 世界主義 ； 中西文化調和論

並列摘要

The issue of China's pragmatic philosophy, in regard to the country's cultural mission, emerged in the chapter ”Chinese People's Great Mission for World Civilization” in the Impressions of a Voyage to Europe by Liang Qichao (1873-1929). published in March of 1920. It reflects the fact that Liang started to emphasize the effect of culture on society following his European journey. It signified his understanding that the operation of Chinese society had changed. The previous culture studies on this change either regarded it as part of a debate on oriental and western cultures from the perspective of the May Fourth Movement and considered Liang a precursor of Neo-Confucianism, or interpreted its significance under the context of cultural self-reformation. Little explored in the past, the relationship between this changed viewpoint and Liang's pragmatic philosophy, as well as the significance of the latter, will be analyzed in this research.
The three conclusive points of this study are: first, in terms of culture stud). Liang assumed a linear evolution of cultural history, i.e., that human society developed from folk culture to high culture, rather than evolving simultaneously in diverse ways. Then, he focused on how the cultural systems of signification in both the east and west should be integrated, rendering an interpretive explanation. Besides, he did not clarify what bias his own cultural perspective might cause; his analysis of the oriental and western cultures is an emic account. Also, his concept concerning oriental/western cultures centered on the analysis of traditional ideal cultures, not real cultures, and on the high culture formed by the intellectuals, rather than the subcultures in real social and cultural contexts. Therefore, Liang's ”cultural harmonization theory” aimed to find a general principle that combined oriental and western academic merits in order for the eastern and western societies to develop more in accordance with rationality.
Second, the difference between Liang's theory of China's Cultural Mission and his other ideas of pragmatic philosophy involve not only the exchange of the east and west knowledge but also the cultural ideology formed by the long-inherited Chinese academic traditions. Such ideology, besides permeating into the life experience of traditional Chinese scholars, also led them to assume a responsibility to shoulder the mission of highest-order interest for the development of the whole world. However, while the new education system of the west introduced into China was a help in the administration of the country, Liang's ”China's Mission” could not be applied in this case, causing it to fail to achieve the requisite cultural reproduction mechanism in the new academic arena.
Third, in light of Liang's motivation in writing the chapter, his ”China's Mission” aimed not only to bring about the best of traditional Chinese culture but to base his discourse on China's response to the world crisis at that historical period of time. Since his discourse pertained to the protection of benefits to China, it could turn the attention of academia from the May Fourth Movement to how modern western culture would impact postwar European society. In particular, Chinese academia lacked a definite orientation in the situation where Liang’s work realistically depicted the crisis the world was facing and at the same time proposed measures for dealing with it. He thereby became the ”initial and most powerful critic” of the times.

並列關鍵字

Liang Qichao ； Cultural Function ； Pragmatic Philosophy ； Cosmopolitanism ； Cultural Harmonization Theory