轉載:
MAY FOURTH @ 100: CHINA AND THE WORLD
APRIL 12 @ 9:30 AM - APRIL 13 @ 5:30 PM
VENUE
- CGIS South, Tsai Auditorium (S010)
-
1730 Cambridge St
Cambridge, MA 02138 United States
Cambridge, MA 02138 United States
Full Program (with Abstracts)
MAY FOURTH @ 100: CHINA AND THE WORLD
AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Hosted by Harvard University
Organized by Harvard University & Wellesley College
Sponsored by: the Chiang Ching-Kuo Center for Sinology; National Taiwan University; the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard; the Harvard University Asia Center; the Harvard-Yenching Institute; and the Harvard Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations
APRIL 12, 2019
1730 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
CGIS-South Building, Tsai Auditorium
9:30
Welcome Remarks
David Der-wei Wang 王德威 (Harvard University)
Opening Remarks
Michael Szonyi 宋怡明 (Harvard University)
9:40-10:40
Keynote Speech
Rudolf Wagner (University of Heidelberg)
“Reconstructing May Fourth: The Role of Communication, Propaganda, and International Actors”
Introduced by Zhaoguang Ge 葛兆光 (Fudan University)
10:40-11:00
Coffee Break
11:00-12:10
Forum I: May Fourth and Cultural Mutation
Chair: Hsiao-t’i Li 李孝悌 (City University of Hong Kong)
Michael Hill (College of William and Mary)
“May Fourth and the Limits of Comparison” (五四时期与比较研究的界限)
At the end of the nineteenth century, intellectuals in Beijing, Cairo, Shanghai, and Beirut grappled with problems that were strikingly similar: How could the local written language transmit modern knowledge? How could classical learning be reconciled with “modern” (understood as Western) thought? What was the role of traditionally educated people in new educational and media institutions? And what authority should be granted to those who could translate and import modern knowledge? My current project investigates the surprising points of connection between two moments in history that are ordinarily seen as discrete, if not unique in world history. My talk will discuss the intergenerational conflict carried out by writers of the New Culture and Mary Fourth period and writers associated with the Diwān group in Egypt against their respective opponents. In their rejection of what they saw as older, hopelessly excessive and ornamented styles, these writers recast the work of the intellectual in ways that bear important resemblance to one another. Through a comparative analysis of these two movements, scholars might see new opportunities for understanding the May Fourth period beyond East Asia and beyond the East/West axis of comparison.
十九世纪末北京、开罗、上海和贝鲁特的文人都面临相当类似的问题：本土的语文能否传达现代知识？如何使传统学问与“现代”（即西方）思想接轨？受过传统教育的读书人在新型教育、媒体机构应该扮演何种角色？能够翻译上述“现代知识”的读书人应该享有什么样的地位？中国“启蒙”运动和阿拉伯世界“复兴”（Nahdah）运动经常被视为毫无关联的历史现象，但笔者研究计划试图将这两个地方的文化作品放在同一个框架加以分析。这次报告讨论的是，中国新文化/五四知识分子和埃及Al-Diwan派的作家如何讽刺、排斥旧派作家的文学风格，并进一步通过讽刺文字讨论新型知识分子的自我定位。通过这类的比较分析，笔者希望找办法超脱既有的“东亚”或者“东/西”（East/West）史学方法，以便从新角度瞭解五四时期的意义与重要性。
Tsuyoshi Ishii 石井剛 (The University of Tokyo)
What Did They Protest against? –– On the Possibility of the Reinterpretation of “Li” (禮) in “May Fourth” Discourse
Lu Xun designated the feudalistic moral which he strongly opposed as “cannibalistic lijiao”. As a consequence of this, “lijiao” (禮教), or the Confucian moral code, became one of the central targets for criticism in the “May Fourth” New Culture Movement. “Li” in “lijiao” has been understood as a traditional moral convention system which oppressed individual human subjectivity and which was utilized by authoritarian governmental powers––even within the Republican era. However, recent research conducted by Michael Puett demonstrates an alternative interpretation of the concept that redefines it as a practice that possesses the power to transform mundane life. His unique interpretation invites us to re-examine the “May Fourth” discourse on “li” from alternative aspects. It also bears mentioning that a number of radical re-evaluations of “li” emerged contemporaneously with the New Culture Movement; some of which ought to be reconsidered alongside Puett’s interpretation. This paper will focus on discussions found in the monthly Guogu 國故 journal, and demonstrate how the authors provided new views on ancient meanings of “li”. In particular, it will shed light on how we can recognize in these views a clear academic lineage which stems back to 18th century evidential scholarship, and how this lineage came to undergird modern revolutionary thought that emerged in the early 20th century. Through this analysis, this paper will demonstrate a new side to the “May Fourth” Movement that could be conceived of as a “ritual revolution.”
鲁迅曾经将其所极力反对的封建道德称做“吃人的礼教”，使得“礼教”成为“五四”新文化运动中最主要的批判对象之一。“礼”概念作为一个传统道德因循系统，人们往往认为它压抑个人的主体性，也因此威权主义的政治权力也利用它为压迫人的工具。即使在民国时期仍为如此。但是，普鸣（Michael Puett）最近的研究给我们展示了“礼”概念的另类诠释，把它重新界定为一种实践模式：是拥有力量能够改变日常生活的实践。普鸣的独特解释可让我们试图从不同的侧面考量“五四”话语中的“礼”概念。同时，我们也应该关注一些“礼”概念的颠覆性新诠释也在新文化运动时期曾出现过，且其中也有些可以参考普鸣的诠释进行再思考的例子。本文将对《国故》月刊中的讨论加以关注，并描述该刊作者如何对“礼”的古义赋予了新的观点。特别是，本文将回溯18世纪的考据学，证明他们承接着其学术脉络，从而指出这条脉络实际上为20世纪早期的现代革命思想提供了理论基础。通过如上分析，本文将作为新的“五四”运动观提出“五四”作为“礼的革命”的观点。
Paola Iovene 叶纹 (University of Chicago)
“May Fourth @ 10: Looking Backward from 1929” (“五四”十年)
This paper explores how the May Fourth looked like in 1929. Given the complexity of the May Fourth as a sociopolitical, cultural, and media process, I will look at how it was reimagined and its legacy contested in fictional and critical writings appearing ten years after the student protests of 1919. Tentatively, my discussion will focus on the “fake new” in Mao Dun’s novel Hong (Rainbow) and its critical reception. Scholars have long questioned the unity, coherence, and even the existence of the May Fourth as a movement, as a literary trend, and as a set of concepts or beliefs. Building on their work, I suggest that internal contradictions, hesitation, and self-critique were central to how 1920s writers dealt with the revolutionary potential of the May Fourth. Realism itself, one of the styles with which writers experimented at the time, was an expression rather than the overcoming of doubt. While this might not be a new insight per se, the point is to remember that the May Fourth went through denial and critique before being canonized as a pivotal moment in China’s modern literary history. Much scholarly work has gone into detailing the modernities that anticipated the May Fourth, on the one hand, and the strategies whereby radical intellectuals silenced their predecessors and opponents, on the other. New insights might emerge by looking at how the May Fourth itself was attacked by those most closely associated with it, in its immediate “post.”
在1929年如何看待“五四”？“五四”是一场复杂的社会、政治、文化和媒介的变迁，而本文将关注1919年学生运动的十年后，小说和文学批评如何对其进行再造与反思。笔者讨论的主要文本是茅盾的《虹》及其批评。“五四”，无论作为社会运动、文学思潮、还是作为一套理念和信仰的体系，其内部是否有一致性，甚至整个“五四”究竟是否存在，长期以来都在学界备受争议。从前有的论述出发，本文认为一九二零年代的作家正是从“五四”的各种内部矛盾、犹疑不决和自我批判中发现了它潜在的革命性。二十年代作家的现实主义实验旨在质疑现状，并不代表他们所质疑的问题已被克服。笔者希望借本文强调，“五四”在被定性为中国现代文学史的转捩点之前，也曾受到过否定与批判。学界对“五四”以前的现代性之发生已有过相当多的评价，对“五四”知识分子如何驳倒前人、拔除异见，也有不少讨论。而如能看到与“五四”联系最密切的一群人，在它刚刚结束的十年后，对它进行过怎样的批判，也许会有新的启发。
12:10-1:10
Lunch
1:10-2:30
Forum II: Revolution and Utopian Politics
Chair: Jie Li 李潔 (Harvard University)
Pu Wang 王璞 (Brandeis University)
“The May Fourth Mobility: Travel Writing, World Making, and Utopian Geography
(五四的流动性： 旅行书写，创造世界与乌托邦地理)
The May Fourth New Culture Movement was about mobility: the intellectual, cultural and ultimately sociopolitical mobility it unleashed, as is well known, led to a dramatic era of revolutionary mobilization. There was yet another dimension of mobility: the May Fourth generation was a generation that constantly travelled, in search of the “other” place, better place, and no place (that is, utopia as both eu-topia and u-topia), and left a wealth of travel writings that deal with this constant transit and search. In this presentation, I draw attention to the May Fourth mobility in the most literal sense of “movement” as traveling, and focus on the May Fourth tradition of travel literature as a form of making sense of the world and imagining utopian politics. The first trajectory I will follow is from Liang Qichao’s critique of European modernity in Ou you xin ying lu (Impressions from travels in Europe) to Zhou Zuoren’s essayistic account of his visit to Japan’s quasi-socialist commune Atarashiki-mura (New Village, established by Saneatsu Mushanokōji in Kyushu). In parallel to this was a literature in search of Soviet Russia, from Qu Qiubai’s E xiang ji cheng (Journey to the starving land) and Chi du xin shi (Record of the Heart in the red capital) to Hu Yuzhi’s Mosike yinxiang ji (Impressions of Moscow, 1931). I aim to show that May Fourth travel literature was premised on a cosmopolitan politics and responded to an urgency of reimagining global modernity. This new dynamic initiated an impassioned and enlightened search of utopian geopolitics in revolutionary Chinese literature and culture.
流动性向来是五四新文化运动的题中之意：众所周知，它所释放的知识、文化以及社会政治的流动性, 引领了一个属于革命动员的戏剧性时代。与此同时，流动性的另一面向却未能得到充分重视：五四一代是不断旅行的一代，不断求索“他方”，一个更好的所在，或不存在的异乡（所谓乌托邦“utopia”， 既是极乐之邦”eu-topia,”亦是乌有之乡”u-topia”）。他们留下了旅行书写的丰富遗产， 探讨永恒的过境与追寻。本文将把注意力投向字面意义上的“移动”——旅行的流动性，聚焦通过旅行书写理解世界、想象乌托邦政治的五四传统。我所要追踪的第一条线索，是从梁启超批判欧洲现代性的《欧游心影录》到周作人记叙他访问日本“新村” （武者小路实笃在九州创立的半社会主义公社）经历的散文。与此并存的，是一系列探寻苏俄的文字，从瞿秋白的《饿乡纪程》与《赤都心史》到胡愈之的《莫斯科印象记》（1931）。本文力图说明，五四旅行文学以世界主义政治为前提，回应了重新想象全球现代性的急迫需求。这一新的思想动态启动了中国革命文学文化中一次兼具澎湃热情与启蒙诉求的追寻乌托邦地缘政治之旅。
Andrew Rodekohr 若岸⾈ (Wake Forest University 維克森林⼤學)
Worlding May Fourth: Qu Qiubai’s Critique of Modern Chinese Literature
(世界中的五四：瞿秋⽩的當代⽂學批評)
Of the prominent May Fourth writers and literary critics, Qu Qiubai was one of the rare few who actually participated in the protests in 1919. Qu would go on to become the most sophisticated Marxist literary theoretician in China and even served briefly as leader of the Chinese Communist Party. Following his political downfall, Qu devoted himself to questions on the role of literature in the context of revolutionary politics. One the primary targets of Qu’s forceful critique was the very legacy of the May Fourth Movement, which he viewed as irredeemably “Europeanized” and a failure of the literary elite to create literature for the masses. In this presentation, I attempt to trace the connections between Qu’s physical involvement in the May Fourth demonstrations of 1919 and the development of his later critique of the literary movement it spawned. In particular, I examine Qu’s complicated relationship with mass politics and literary criticism alongside his own end-of-life articulation of his own literary identity as a wenren, a figure of traditional Chinese literatus. Qu, in this way, manifests a critical self-awareness that situates modern Chinese literature in the incomplete process of becoming Chinese.
瞿秋⽩作為重要的，為數不多的參加1919年五四運動的，五四⽂學批評家及作家。 在中國他成為了⾒多識廣的⾺克思⽂學理論家，甚⾄短暫地擔任了中國共產黨的領導。隨著他政治上的衰敗，瞿秋⽩致⼒於審視⽂學在⾰命政策中的⾓⾊。瞿秋⽩的強有⼒評論的重要目標之⼀是五四運動的遺產，他認為五四運動的遺產被不可輓回地“歐洲化”了，並且⽂學精英為⼤眾創作⽂學是⼀種失敗。在講演中，我會嘗試追尋瞿秋⽩在1919年五四運動的切⾝參與與他後期⽂學批評發展的產⽣之間的聯繫。特別要分析瞿的主要政治觀點和⽂學批評以及他在⽣命後期將⾃⼰的⽂學⾝份定位為中國的傳統⽂⼈之間的關係。從這點看來，瞿顯⽰了他在“⽣成”中國⽂學未完成的過程中的⾃我批評意識。
Xiaojue Wang 王晓珏 (Rutgers University)
“Feng Zhi and the Poetics of Landscape in May Fourth Literature”
(冯至和五四文学的风景诗学)
This paper examines modern Chinese literature’s engagement with the poetics of landscape and how it mediates and meditates on the relationship between human beings and things, poetry and nature, physical and metaphysical worlds. I first compare various May Fourth writers’ renditions of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s nature poems to consider their notions of the cosmos, nature, and landscape poetry. I will then discuss Feng Zhi (1905-1993)’s 1940s reflections in wartime Kunming on issues including the romantic notion of landscape and its antipastoral counterpart, the mutual formation and transformation between the poetic self and nature, the poetic figuration and signification of nature, and the rhetoric of temporality in landscape poetry.
什么是现代风景？文学如何为风景赋形并且表意？本文探讨五四以来的中国现代文学，如何在传统的山水观与西方浪漫主义以来的自然观之间开启对话，并发展出现代的风景观念。冯至在抗战时期的昆明完成的《十四行集》、《山水》和《伍子胥》等作品，主要关注了人与自然、物质世界与诗学世界、诗歌形式与语言表意之间的关系。其中既可以看到传统诗学的物我关系的影响，也有他对歌德的宇宙观和蜕变学说的思考。从现代个人的风景到物我之间的相互改变、生生不息，从变动不居的自然到诗歌的赋之以形，风景的发现所指向的更是现代诗歌或者艺术的语言、形式和表意等诸多问题。
Weijie Song 宋伟杰 (Rutgers University 罗格斯大学)
“Shamanistic Narrative, Fragmentary Redemption: Imagining Northeast China Beyond the Great Wall” (有“灵”的历史，残缺的救赎：关外，飞地，东北想象)
How do we explore the geographical and territorial dimensions of May Fourth Movement and its legacy? How do we understand the recent return of superstition narrative and shamanistic performance within and without the framework of May Fourth enlightenment and revolution? This paper examines Northeast China (Dongbei, Manchu, Manchuria, and Manchukuo) as an aesthetic and ideological heterotopia and “non-place” beyond the Shanhai Pass and the Great Wall evidenced in the Twenty-First Century literary and cinematic representations. By focusing on the methods of imagining Dongbei envisioned and practiced by distinctive writers (Chi Zijian, Liu Qing, Shuang Xuetao, Zheng Zhi, Jiang Feng, and Ban Yu), and maverick film directors (Wang Bing, Fruit Chan, Zhang Meng, Han Jie, Diao Yinan, Hu Bo, and Cai Chengjie), I inquire into their connected and bifurcated shamanistic narrative and/or fragmentary redemption, as well as their subtle and intricate entanglements with the May Fourth tradition and its discontents.
如何思考“五四”传统及遗产的地理分布与地域形态？在 “五四”运动“启蒙”与“革命”的话语之内与之外，怎样理解近期迷信叙述、萨满表演的归来及其涵义？本论文探讨当代文学电影中作为关外、飞地、“非”地的东北，既是叙述和记忆的对象，也是想象与再现的场景。通过解读若干特立独行的作家（迟子建、刘庆、双雪涛、郑执、蒋峰、班宇等）、以及先锋电影导演（王兵、张猛、陈果、韩杰、刁亦男、胡波、蔡成杰等）的东北想象，笔者试图辨析他们相关亦分叉的文字、影像路径——书写并展演有“灵”的历史，残缺的救赎——从而探讨二十一世纪有关东北的文学、电影图景，及其与“五四”思想斩不断理还乱的纠葛与变异。
2:30-2:40
Coffee Break
2:40-3:50
Forum III: May Fourth and the West
Chair: Ha Jin 哈金 (Boston University)
Olga Lamová (Charles University, Prague)
“From periphery to periphery – the beginnings of ex libris in China”
(从边缘到边缘 － 中国藏书票的开端)
Since 1980s ex-libris (cangshupiao 藏書票) has been a popular form of art and art-collecting practice in China. Despite of that it remains at the margins of literary and cultural history of modern China. The paper will look for the beginnings of the ex-libris practice among May Fourth generation writers in early 1930s around the Xiandaijournal, tracing the introduction of the art from Europe via Japan, and its conceptualization in relationship to domestic tradition of book collecting. It will also touch upon the marginality of ex-libris in China at that time, unlike its broad popularity in Japan. The case will be framed in three sets of more general issues: 1) uneasy relationship between domestic tradition and the impulses coming from the west; 2) self-positioning of the May Fourth generation authors vis-à-vis Chinese tradition and western modernity, including ways of legitimizing a new practice; 3) the travel and circulation of western ideas in East Asia. The last issue also touches upon the often-neglected diversity of the notion of “the west”, generally understood through the centers in Europe and U.S., as it will point out to important presence of impulses from European periphery.
尽管从上世纪八十年代起藏书票在中国已成为一种大众艺术和艺术收藏形式，但它一直处在中国现代文学和文化史的边缘地带。本文将从1930年代前期与《现代》期刊有关的五四一代作家群中探寻藏书票的开端，并追溯该艺术形式如何从欧洲经由日本引入中国，及其与国内书籍收藏传统相关的概念化过程。本文也会对比藏书票在日本的广为流行与在八十年代中国的边缘化地位。文章由三组问题架构而成：1）本国传统与西方影响之间的紧张关系；2）五四一代作家在面对中国传统和西方现代性时的自我定位以及将新艺术形式合法化的方式；3）西方观念在东亚的“旅行”和传播。同时，由于“西方”这一概念通常是以欧洲和美国为中心而定义的，本文最后也会探讨来自欧洲边缘的重要影响，以此触及鲜受关注的“西方”概念本身的多样性问题.
Jingling Chen (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne)
“Under the Greek Sunshine: Zhou Zuoren in May Fourth”
(在希臘陽光下：五四時期的周作人)
(在希臘陽光下：五四時期的周作人)
This paper looks into Zhou Zuoren’s unique position in the New Culture Movement through reflecting on his translation of the Greek poet Theocritus’s work and his literary thought associated with his admiration for the Greek antiquity. Zhou first joined force with the New Youth cultural reformers in 1918 when he published “A New Translation of an Old Poem,” a vernacular free-verse rendition of Theocritus’s Idyll 10, in addition to a short introduction. This piece demonstrates Zhou’s commitment to a literary revolution that first of all focuses on the usage of a new vernacular literary discourse. This commitment was combined with his earlier efforts to seek a revolution in thought together with his elder brother Lu Xun.
On the other hand, Zhou Zuoren’s choice of translating Theocritus also shows his more sophisticated cultural thought that points to a richer meaning of literature than merely serving the purposes of the Enlightenment, revolution, and the change to the nation’s intellectual outlook. In the ancient Greek poet’s idylls, Zhou Zuoren believed that he found the “real spirit of the Greek”—a combination of worldliness and aestheticism—that would teach a life responsible and dignified in this-world, for the Greek and the Chinese alike. During the May Fourth period, Zhou Zuoren was one of the few intellectuals who felt compelled to appreciate the joys of the daily life, the pleasure of writing about it, and the strength of a national literature that is deeply seated in folklore and folklife.
本文針對周作人對古希臘詩人谛阿克列多思”（Theocritus 今譯忒奥克里托斯）的翻譯、對古希臘的崇拜及其有關的文學思想的研究，而重新審視周在五四新文化運動中的特殊地位。
周作人于1918年加入《新青年》文化改革運動的行列，并發表了一本運用白話自由體翻譯的谛氏牧歌10，附簡介一篇，成書名為《古詩今譯》。此書中周作人對白話的運用反應了他對文學改良的承諾。此承諾也和他先前與其兄魯迅共同尋求改革的努力相輔相成。
此外，周作人對谛氏詩歌的翻譯也表現了他複雜的文化思想。和只是簡單地為啟蒙和革命而服務或改變國家的知識前景相比，周的思想賦予了文學更多的意涵。在古希臘詩人的牧歌集中，周作人相信他發現了“希臘的真正精神”，即世俗和美學的結合。他認為不管對於希臘還是中國，這種精神可以教導眾人一種在“此世”有責任、有尊嚴的生活。在五四時期，周作人是認為必須享受生活、書寫日常和欣賞扎根于民間的國族文學的少數知識分子之一。
Xiaolu Ma 马筱璐 (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology香港科技大学)
“Translingual Negotiation and Concession: Relay Translation of Turgenev’s Stories in New Youth” (跨语际协商与让步：《新青年》中屠格涅夫小说的转译)
This paper focuses on the early translations published in New Youth, one of the leading periodicals in the New Culture Movement in China. While extant research mostly focuses on this journal’s iconoclastic and radical arguments that prepared the way for the May Fourth Movement in 1919, this paper examines the period before Chen Duxiu, the founder of New Youth, raised the banner of literary revolution. By interrogating the concealed history of relay translations of fiction, especially translation of Turgenev’s stories by Chen Gu, published in New Youth, this paper unfolds various approaches Chinese translators took in presenting Western culture—sometimes involving unexpected processes of localization due to Japanese mediation. Specifically, I argue that the early translations in New Youth formed an interstitial space of hybridity where writers negotiate among different visions of transcultural syntheses.
《新青年》杂志作为五四运动中最具影响力的杂志广受学界关注。以往学者往往着重研究《新青年》中的政论和小说，而本论文将目光转向早期《新青年》在西方文学翻译上的贡献。本文将考察1915-1916年陈独秀主编的《新青年》是如何通过翻译——尤其是转译——来介绍西方文化的。通过梳理陈嘏翻译屠格涅夫短篇小说时采用的译本，以其翻译中对古文、白话文的取舍，本文试图呈现《新青年》早期翻译中体现的文化定位的含混性及文化渗透的复杂性。
3:50 – 4:10
Coffee Break
4:10-5:10
Roundtable I: May Fourth Isn’t Yesterday
Chair: Catherine Yeh (Boston University)
Participants:
Xia Xiaohong (Peking University)
Chia-ling Mei (National Taiwan University)
Hsiao-t’i Li (City University of Hong Kong)
Dai Yan (Fudan University)
Wen-ching Li (Nagoya University)
Aki Tsumori (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies)
6:30 – 9:00
Symposium Dinner (Participants only)
APRIL 13, 2019
9:30-10:30
Keynote Speech
Chen Pingyuan 陳平原 (Peking University)
“From ‘Touches of History’ to ‘Exercises in Thought’: My Views on May Fourth and May Fourth Studies” (从“触摸历史”到“思想操练”——我看五四以及五四研究)
Introduced by Olga Lomová (Charles University, Prague)
10:30-10:50
Coffee Break
10:50-12:10
Forum IV: May Fourth and Korea and Japan
Chair: Leonard K.K. Chan 陳國球 (Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Zhaoguang Ge 葛兆光 (Fudan University)
“From ‘Imperial Realm’ to ‘National Territory’: Japanese Aggression and Chinese Responses to the Question of “Sovereignty” before the May Fourth Period”
(从“帝国疆域”到“国家领土”——“五四”之前有关“主权”的日本刺激与中国反应)
This essay first discusses an article titled "The Future of China" by Japanese thinker Kazumi Ukita (1860-1946). In the few years before the May Fourth Movement, the explosion of discussions regarding China’s preservation and fragmentation in Japan alarmed and shocked Chinese society, from laymen to elite intellectuals. The historical era extending from the late Qing Dynasty to the beginning of the Republic of China was a critical moment for China’s transition from traditional imperial territory to the sovereignty of the modern state. Therefore, the focus of the political and academic debates shifted from “self-strengthening” during the late-Qing to the “preserving national territory” in the early Republican period. In the years before the May Fourth Movement, the awakening of modern Chinese consciousness regarding the frontiers was inseparable from the pressure of the Japanese political aggression. The resources for understanding the history of the four ethnic groups were also closely related to Mongolian studies in Japan. The complicated relationship with Japan was a source for the idea of "national salvation" before the May Fourth Movement.
At the end of this paper, I try to put forward the argument it is legitimate for previous scholarship to use "enlightenment" and "national salvation" to describe the May Fourth Movement. I only suggest reversing the order of "enlightenment" and "national salvation." In other words, the May Fourth Movement was triggered by the combination of national sentiments and new cultural enlightenment.
本文从日本浮田和民的《中国之将来》一文说起，讨论五四之前的几年中，日本有关中国保全和割裂的言论，对中国社会上下的刺激。指出从晚清到民初，正是中国从传统帝国之宗主权向现代国家之主权、传统帝国之疆域向现代国家之领土转化的关键时代，所以政界与学界的舆论也从晚晴的“寻求自强”转向民初的“保全国土”。五四之前的几年中，中国对边疆现代意识之觉醒，与日本政界的步步紧逼分不开，对四裔历史认识之资源，也和日本学界的满蒙回藏研究息息相关，这种和日本复杂纠缠的关系，正是五四之前“救亡”思想的一个来源。
本文最后尝试提出，过去学界用“启蒙”和“救亡”描述五四并没有错，只是建议把“启蒙”和“救亡”次序加以调整，即“救亡性的反帝政治运动过程，碰上了启蒙性的新文化思潮，二者结合促成了这场五四运动”。
Satoru Hashimoto橋本悟 (University of Maryland 馬里蘭大學)
“Reverberations of the May Fourth in Japan” (五四在日本的迴響)
The Treaty of Versailles handed a political victory to the nascent state of Japan, and the immediate response of the Japanese public opinion to the May Fourth Movement was generally denunciatory and loaded with calls for protecting the hard-won “national interests” from the protesters. However, Japan’s political win in post-World War I international relations also meant that the nation had become fully complicit in the very injustice of imperialism with which it had grappled in its ongoing quest for modernization. This ironic contradiction made the May Fourth resonate with certain Japanese intellectuals as a call for self-reflection on Japanese modernity in particular and, above all, for a structural critique of modernity in general. My paper is an attempt at gleaning such reverberations in both pre- and post-1945 Japan. It especially focuses on works by Yoshino Sakuzō (1878-1933) and Takeuchi Yoshimi (1910-77) and explores how the conceptual and affective implications of the May Fourth were disseminated in their writings.
五四運動的導火索需要追溯到凡爾賽和約，而崛起的日本卻因這一和約的簽訂大受政治上的裨益。源於此，五四運動剛一興起，日本公眾輿論就從保護日本國族的利益出發，大肆抨擊五四的發起人和參與者。然而，雖然日本在一戰後的世界格局中獲益，但這種獲益也意味著彼時的日本完全認可了也曾讓其自身危機四伏的帝國主義。這個富有諷刺意味的自相矛盾讓當時的一些日本學人和五四青年們跨海產生共鳴，他們不僅開始反思日本自己的現代性，同時也反思當時整個人類社會的現代性症候。本文的主要目標即是梳理1945年前後日本學界源於五四運動所產生的現代性反思。本文尤其關注吉野作造（1878-1933）和竹內好（1910-1977）的著作，分析他們如何在各自的作品中建構關於五四運動的理論話語和情緒感染。
BoGyeong Lee (Kangwon National University)
“The New Era and Its Affects: The March First Sympathy and the May Fourth Shame”
(新纪元时代的情感：“三一”的同情与“五四”的惭愧)
Intellectuals in Korea and China named the year 1919 as the New Era. The name helped to define the March First and the May Fourth movements, which became benchmarks for the advance of modernity in both countries. This essay explores how “affect” inspired the collective movements in the context of a broader hope for the New Era. Texts for my analysis include newspaper and magazine articles, Yi Kwangsu’s novel Mujŏng (The Heartless, 1917) and Lu Xun’s short story “Kuangren riji” (A Madman’s Diary, 1918). The Chinese intellectuals viewed the March First movement with a sense of shame, whereas the Korean intellectuals sympathized with the Chinese students struggling for the May Fourth movement. Sympathy and shame are the two major forms of affect found respectively in The Heartless and “A Madman’s Diary.” The Koreans in the colonial state developed a sense of national solidarity by expressing sympathy for the weak, which ultimately led them to organize a peaceful movement based in a broader love for humanity. On the other hand, a feeling of shame for their divided homeland inspired the Chinese to grapple with tradition and establish a new culture.
1919年韩中文人对新纪元的强烈诉求分别引爆了“三一”与“五四”。本文思考何种“情感”使其诉求凝结成一种集体性力量的。讨论材料来自报刊、杂志以及李光洙的《无情》（1917）和鲁迅的《狂人日记》（1918）。中国以惭愧来面对“三一”运动，而韩国则同情奋斗的“五四”学生。同情与惭愧分别成为两国文学的核心情感。被殖民的韩国人透过对弱者的同情，重新发掘了民族一体感，进而呼吁人类爱的和平运动；而中国则因未能建成现代民族国家的惭愧，转而与传统做生死搏斗。
Younghwan Park 朴永煥 (Dongguk University韓國東國大學)
“The Tragic Life of Independence Activist and Businessman Og Gwanbin：His Role in the
‘105 People Incident’, the ‘March-First Movement’, and His Exile Period in Shanghai”
(獨立運動家兼事業家玉觀彬悲劇的一生——以“105人事件”、“3.1運動”, 上海亡命時期為中心)
Og Gwanbin (1891-1933), a Korean independence activist, was sentenced to jail by the Japanese colonial government for his involvement in “105 People Incident”, a predominantly Christian nationalist movement in 1911. This movement had laid the bedrock for the "March-First Movement" of 1919 for national independence. After he became disengaged from the "March-First Movement" group due to his previous convictions, Og rushed to Shanghai as an exile where he got involved with the Korean interim government. Afterwards, Og converted to Buddhism and became a disciple of Master Taixu. Their collaboration aimed at the reformation of Buddhism, while Og’s medical company Fo Ci (佛慈) commercialized the improvement of the Chinese medicine adapting scientific methods of refining treatments. However, Korean anarchist clique suspected Og of espionage for the Japanese and assassinated him in public. His complicated life was overshadowed by changing identities: from Korean nationalist to Chinese citizen by choice, from Christian agitator to Buddhist reformist, and from independence activist to suspected traitor of his native Korea. Foregrounding Og Gwanbin’s changing roles, this paper aims to reconcile partisan debates between Chinese and Korean scholars, each claiming the resourceful innovator for their nation.
玉觀彬（1891-1933）韓國獨立運動家。1911年他牽涉到以基督徒為主導的民族主義運動“105人事件”，被判入獄。此為3.1民族獨立運動的前身活動。由於他有前科，脫離了3.1獨立運動隊伍，但他立即亡命到上海，參與臨時政府活動。後來他皈依太虛大師，幫助太虛推動佛教改革運動，又提出科學提煉，改良國藥，他的精力集中于佛慈藥廠。然韓國人嫌疑他是日本密探，至1933年被韓國無政府主義團體暗殺身亡。他一生複雜曲折，從韓國籍到中國籍；從基督教到佛教；從獨立運動家到被為韓奸的嫌疑。本文探討韓、中兩國學術界的不同理解與看法，以及其中尚未討論的研究領域。
12:10-1:10
Lunch (CGIS-S030)
1:10-2:30
Forum V: May Fourth and the Sinophone World
Chair: Chia-ling Mei 梅家玲 (National Taiwan University)
Josephine Chiu-Duke 丘慧芬 (The University of British Columbia)
“The May Fourth Liberal Legacy in Taiwan” (五四的自由遺產在台灣)
This essay discusses how the May Fourth liberal legacy, with democracy being one of its most advocated slogans, was carried forward in Taiwan through the efforts of the Free China Bi-monthly, but my focus is on the efforts of Yin Haiguang and his student in their pursuit of liberal democracy. Calling himself “the son of the May Fourth,” Yin advocated liberal democracy as the only way to resist the then dictatorial rule within Taiwan and the threat of totalitarian rule from without.
Although the tragic fate of Yin Haiguang and the Free China magazine did not bring victory for the May Fourth liberal ideals, Yin’s liberal ideals resurfaced in the works of his student Lin Yu-sheng. Since 1980, Lin has modified, clarified, and corrected many of Yin Haiguang’s ideas and understanding of liberal democracy. He has also given a sophisticated interpretation of some of the basic values pertinent to the development of liberal democracy. His interpretation is such that he can be regarded as the first intellectual who put forward a coherent system of arguments for liberal democracy that continues the May Fourth liberal legacy. This is not only crucial to the establishment of liberal democracy in the Sinophone world, but also relevant to the development of other democratic societies.
本文討論以民主做為其標誌之一的五四自由遺產，是如何通過《自由中國》雜誌的努力而能在台灣延續發展，但討論會聚焦在殷海光與其學生為追求自由民主的實現所付出的努力和奮鬥。對自稱是「五四的兒子」殷海光來說，自由民主是對抗當時台灣內部專制並抵禦外部極權的唯一出路。
殷海光與《自由中國》雜誌的悲劇下場沒有給五四的自由理想帶來勝利，但他對建立自由民主的理想卻重新顯現在他的學生林毓生的論著中。1980年代以來，林毓生將殷海光對自由民主的許多看法與了解都做了限定、釐清，與改正。他也將發展自由民主的一些基本價值都做了精緻的解釋。他的解釋是如此關鍵，因此可以將他看做是華語世界中對自由民主首次提出了一個具有一致性論證系統的知識份子。這個系統繼續了五四的自由遺產，不但對自由民主在華人世界的建立極為關鍵，也與其他自由社會的發展密切相關。
Eitetsu Ko (Ying-che Huang) 黃英哲 (Aichi University, Japan)
“Revisiting Cultural Genealogy: May Fourth's Circulation and Continuation in Taiwan”
(文化系譜再論：「五四」在台灣的傳續)
As a symbol of democracy, new science culture, and new baihua literature, the May Fourth movement is also a significant token of Chinese cultural, political and social transformations. In recent years, Taiwan has intended to include it in the discussion of Republican memories.
In the early Japanese colonial period, the Beijing Normal University study-abroad student Zhang Wojun had said, “Taiwan's literature is a branch of Chinese literature. As influences and changes take place in the mainstream, it goes without saying that the branch is subsequently influenced and therefore changes.” “But ever since Taiwan was subjugated by Japan, it has been a completely different world as the circulation of Chinese books became inconvenient. And this gap only deepened over time. There came the introduction and advocacy of the May Fourth movement, and the movement became one of the many branches of the Taiwanese stream.” Wu Yongfu, the Taiwanese writer who attended Meiji University in Japan at that time, recalled in the post-war era: “Many people like to stress the influence of China's May Fourth movement on Taiwanese literature during the Japanese occupation, but they overemphasize it and I cannot agree; at least, when we were publishing Formosa(a literary journal founded by Taiwanese students in Tokyo), we weren't influenced by it.”
This presentation attempts to recount how the May Fourth movement appeared in Taiwan during Japanese occupation, as well as how it was continued and adapted in Taiwan's cultural reconstruction in the early days of retrocession.
「五四」作為民主、科學新文化與白話文新文學的符碼，同時還兼具了中國文化、政治、社會轉型的象徵意涵。近年台灣有意將「五四」納入民國記憶的文化體系中探討，刻意忽視「五四」在台灣的傳續，究竟台灣刻意建構的本土文化系譜與「五四」呈現出何種葛藤是我關注的視點。
早在日本殖民統治時期，留學北京師範大學的台灣作家張我軍已指出「臺灣的文學乃中國文學的一支流。本流發生了甚麼影響、變遷、則支流也自然而然的隨之而影響、變遷、這是必然的道理」「然而臺灣自歸併日本以來因中國書籍的流通不便、遂隔成兩個天地、而且日深其鴻溝，於是才有五四的引進與提倡，成為臺灣本源的眾多支流之一」。同一時期升學日本明治大學的台灣作家巫永福在戰後則回憶道：「很多人喜歡強調中國五四運動新文學對日本時代台灣文學的影響，而且太過強調了，這點我不能夠同意，至少，我們辦《福爾摩沙》(東京台灣學生辦的文學雜誌)時，並未受到影響」。
本報告意圖整理日本殖民統治時期，「五四」如何在台灣呈現？以及台灣光復初期「五四」如何傳續與挪用在台灣的文化重建上。
Chia-Cian Ko 高嘉謙 (National Taiwan University)
“Woodcut and Warrior: The Legacy of Lu Xun's Woodcuts and Miscellaneous Writings in South Seas” (刀刻與戰士：魯迅在南洋的木刻與雜文遺產)
On October 19, 1936, as the news of Lu Xun's death spread, the artistic and literary circles of Singapore and Malaya sank deep into mourning. Among the group, Malayan artist Dai Yinlang (1907-1985) published a woodcut portrait of Lu Xun in Singapore newspaper Nanyang Siangpau to pay homage to the late writer. In the woodcut world, Dai Yinren's succession of Lu Xun's spirit represents another inheritance of Lu Xun's spiritual legacy in Singapore and Malaya. Between the years of 1931-1935, Dai Yinlang studied Western arts at the Shanghai National Academy of Art and keenly felt the popularity of Chinese woodcuts as well as Lu Xun's support for young woodcut artists. In the early days of his return to Nanyang to promote woodcut and comic arts, he exhibited a profound woodcut spirit -- "depicting the multi-faceted conflicts of reality through the sharp touch of his knife," echoing Lu Xun's teachings from afar. Besides exposing the cruelties of society, Dai Yinlang's woodcuts are also close to people's daily lives and incorporated expressions of Nanyang’s landscapes and local flavors; his art records reality, subtly embodying what Lu Xun calls "the soul of the modern society."
Besides woodcuts, the legacy of Lu Xun's spirit has left considerable impact on Malayan Chinese miscellaneous writings and essays. The important local literary scholar Fang Xiu is exclusively keen on Lu Xun's militant and critical miscellaneous writings, and subsequently called for "militant essays" in the 50s to bridge wartime art and literature, as well as to echo Malaya's independence from the British Empire in 1957 by paying attention to the native land at the present moment. Lu Xun's death helped to foster anticolonial resistance movements among the Chinese in Singapore and Malaya; they responded to China’s anti-war efforts, the British occupation of Singapore and Malaya, as well as calls to build an independent nation during the Cold War era. There have been countless commemoration ceremonies for and special journal issues on Lu Xun's death in the past decades in Singapore and Malaysia; Lu Xun's integrity and militancy is his most distinct spiritual legacy. From the prewar woodcuts to the postwar militant essays, the May Fourth role model and Left-wing spirit embodied by Lu Xun occupy a unique and significant place in the nationalistic consciousness of Singapore and Malaysia’s Chinese communities.
1936年10月19日魯迅病逝消息傳出，新馬藝文界陷入悼念的氛圍。其中馬來亞畫家戴隱郎（1907-1985） 於新加坡創刊主編的《南洋商報‧文漫界》，以個人創作的魯迅木刻畫像，向逝世不久的魯迅致敬。在木刻世界裡，戴隱郎對魯迅木刻精神的繼承和跟隨，代表了魯迅精神遺產在新馬的另一種傳承。戴隱郎曾於1931-35年間到上海國立藝專學習西洋美術，感受中國木刻風潮與魯迅對青年木刻藝術家的支持。他返回新馬推廣木刻和漫畫之初，他透露的木刻精神底蘊，「藉尖銳的刀觸，去劃出現實的諸般矛盾面」，遙遙呼應魯迅的教誨。除了暴露社會殘酷面，戴隱郎的木刻貼近大眾的現實生活，接引南洋風土與地方色彩的表達，寫實兼記錄，隱然表現魯迅指稱的「現代社會的魂魄」。
除了木刻，魯迅精神遺產在馬華雜文與散文領域影響甚鉅。當地重要文史工作者方修，獨尊魯迅的戰鬥性與批判性雜文，進而於50年代高呼「戰鬥的散文」，接軌抗戰文藝，也呼應馬來亞1957 年獨立建國，著眼眼前鄉土的此時此地。自魯迅離世，直接鼓動了新馬華人社會從響應中國抗戰、新馬淪陷，以及戰後冷戰氛圍下抗英反殖民的獨立建國力量。新馬兩地數十年無數的魯迅逝世週年紀念會和紀念專號，魯迅的硬骨與鬥爭形象是最為鮮明的精神遺產。從戰前的木刻藝術，到戰後的戰鬥散文，魯迅代表的五四典範和左翼精神，在新馬華人民族意識裡佔據了獨特而深刻的意義。
Hok-yin Chan 陳學然 (City University of Hong Kong 香港城市大學)
“May Fourth” in Hong Kong: Local Voices in Commemorating a National Event”
(家國之間：五四在香港百年回望)
It is well known that the May Fourth Movement was full of ambiguity and tension. On the one hand, the term refers to a one-day incident where thousands of students marched through Beijing on the May Fourth of 1919 to protest the unequal treatment of China in the Versailles Settlement. On the other hand, the same term signifies a decade-long movement, from 1915 to 1925, to promote “science” and “democracy” by changing the Chinese language, the Confucian tradition, and the patriarchal family structure. Because of its multiple meanings, different groups commemorate the May Fourth for different reasons. Sometimes, opposing groups use the commemoration to contest for power, discursively or politically.
In this paper, I will focus on how the educated elite in colonial Hong Kong had used the commemoration of May Fourth to express their local voices. Started immediately after the May Fourth incident in 1919, every year there was a commemoration of the May Fourth in Hong Kong, sometimes in the form of public gatherings and often on the pages of newspapers and magazines. In these commemorations, we see the creativity of the Hong Kong educated elite in transformation the remembering of the May Fourth into a critique of national and local politics. Their creativity, I argue, rested in their ability to use the rhetoric of national salvation to address pressing local issues, such as racial hierarchy, the colonial structure, and the identity of Chinese residents. In this fusion of the local and national narratives, we see the dynamic process of constructing and reconstructing the “May Fourth memory” that lasts to the present day.
本文主要說明國家的五四進入地方而有其在地化的發展後，便會形成一個帶有地方特色的「五四」。在地的五四既可以是與國家的五四遙相呼應，但同時也可以是反國家的五四而行。五四在眾聲喧嘩中所呈現的繽紛多姿面相，實際上透視了不同思想背景的人在對百年中國發展的不同角度及不同層次的反思與展望。以五四在香港為例，透過五四百年的在地發展歷程中，讓人看見了不同政治力量的大歷史叙述、不同時期南來知識社群藉五四以抒發其種種感時憂國之情，當然也更可以從五四的思潮流變裏看見不同時代的精神病痛。五四運動之於在地知識社群而言，是他們瞭望國家民族何去何從的精神燈塔。五四作為現代中國歷史之起源，它的周年紀念成為了知識社群為故國招魂的思想場域。在這點上，過去如此，在可見的將來恐怕亦復如是。
2:30-2:50
Coffee Break
2:50-4:10
Forum VI: Contesting the May Fourth Anew
Chair: Karen Thornber (Harvard University)
Leonard K.K. Chan 陳國球 (Education University of Hong Kong)
“The Shape of the New Culture Movement in Hong Kong” (新文化運動的香港身影)
This presentation focuses on Yuan Zhenying’s (1894-1979) contribution to the “May-fourth New Culture Movement”, It suggests that Yuan’s advocacy of Ibsenism, anarchism and socialism, as well as his competence in foreign languages were the result of his upbringing in Hong Kong under British rule.
「五四運動」是20世紀中國歷史的重大事件。發生在民國初年北京的「五四」與自道光年間已被割捨的香港，如何可以繋聨，或許是香港之遺民史家的關懷。作為政治事件的「五四」是否有南天一隅之島民協同出力，考析尚未見有得。至於與政治「五四」相關的「新文化運動」，則頗見香港身影。例如1918年《新青年》雜誌刊有「易卜生號」，由胡適、陳獨秀等倡發「易卜生主義」，對舊文化與社會制度多所衝擊；此專號上一篇長文<易卜生傳>就由來自香港的年輕學生袁振英所撰寫。「五四」以後，袁振英追隨陳獨秀推動政治社會的改革，在香港報刊繼續介紹西方文化思潮。他在中港之間的政治與文化事業的成敗得失，可以是有心人思考「香港如何中國」的一個歷史案例。
Carlos Rojas 羅鵬 (Duke University)
“Tradition and Diaspora: From Lu Xun to Ng Kim Chew”
(傳統與離散——從魯迅到黃錦樹)
(傳統與離散——從魯迅到黃錦樹)
Published in 1924, Lu Xun’s short story “Benediction” (Zhufu 祝福) describes the quasi-autobiographical narrator’s return to the town of Luchen, which he regards as his “native place” (guxiang 故鄉)—though he immediately notes that “although I call it my native place, I had had no home there for some time.” Meanwhile, just over ninety years later, in 2015, Malaysian Chinese author Ng Kim Chew 黃錦樹 published a short story with the same title, which opens with a similarly curious homecoming scene—in which the adult narrator arrives in Kuala Lumpur from mainland China, bringing her father’s ashes back to the country that he had viewed as his homeland but to which he had be prevented from returning for the latter half of his life. Taking these two identically-titled stories as its starting point, this paper will reflect on the status of concepts of homeland and tradition within May Fourth discourses, together with the subsequent diasporic circulation of those discourses themselves.
魯迅的短篇小說「祝福」（1924年）描述了類自傳體敘事者“我”回故鄉魯鎮的經歷，但回鄉後的“我”立即表示：「雖說故鄉，然而已沒有家」。近九十年以後，馬來西亞華文作家黃錦樹發表了同名短篇小說「祝福」（2015年），以相似的歸鄉情節作為其開頭：已成年的敘事者帶著父親的骨灰，從中國回到吉隆坡——父親大半輩子被禁止入境的「故鄉」。本文以這兩篇小說為起點，探討五四論述中「祖國」與「傳統」的概念，以及兩者其後離散式的流傳與演變。
Mingwei Song 宋明煒 (Wellesley College)
“Can We Read ‘A Madman’s Diary’ as Science Fiction? The Literalness in Science Fiction and A Cognitive Alternate to Realism”
The question I asked here does not demand an answer that either defines “A Madman’s Diary” as science fiction or not. My inquiry aims at an unconventional reading of Lu Xun’s story as a text that tells us what differentiates science fiction from the mainstream realism of modern China. Science fiction used to be considered as the opposite of realism; but the recent revival of the genre claims that science fiction is a sort of realism, a hyperrealism that augments the sense of reality. For example, Han Song’s novels illuminate the invisible reality of contemporary Chinese society, and create a surreal vision of augmented reality that challenges the popular belief in a series of ideas that construct conventional knowledge about realty, ranging from epistemology to psychology to ideology. Han Song actually learns from Lu Xun, who was an early advocate for science fiction before the May Fourth, not only through rewriting Lu Xun’s literary themes such as cannibalism, iron house, saving children, etc., but he also reconstructs Lu Xun’s literary techniques as some basic principles for science fiction. “A Madman’s Diary” contains two conflicting views on reality: based on the literalness of the madman’s discourse, China is a nation of cannibalism; but conventions veil the literalness with various cultural symbolism, so Confucianism could make cannibalism (if there is any) a benevolent part of a civilized life. Science fiction is a literary genre whose grammar, rhetoric, and style are built on the literalness of it scientific, technological discourse. It leads to an inconvenient revelation of deeper truth beneath the surface reality. In “A Madman’s Diary,” if readers choose to believe the madman’s words, they have to go through a cognitive correction about the accepted ideas of the tradition; for them, the reality is no longer the familiar associated with organic society, but instead a cognitively estranged world that shows to them the inconvenient but necessary truth about the world. In other words, the literalness in science fiction paves way for a cognitive alternative to conventional realism. Still this paper does not provide a conclusive statement about the generic nature of “A Madman’s Diary,” but it is my hope to use this famous example to provoke reflections on the poetics of science fiction as a subversive, cognitively alternative literature vs. the mainstream realism as a law-making, truth-claiming literature. Readers have to go through a cognitive corrective in order to come to the revelation about the truth of the world, as “A Madman’s Diary” and many contemporary Chinese science fiction have shown to us. In this sense, although May Fourth saw the disappearance of SF as a genre, its groundbreaking literary work “A Madman’s Diary” outlines the unique poetics of the new wave of Chinese science fiction that prevailed one hundred years after the May Fourth.
设问：我们能否把曾经在早期热衷于译介科学小说的鲁迅第一篇白话小说《狂人日记》当作科幻小说来阅读？这是一个无解的问题，不存在非此即彼的答案。但是举出《狂人日记》的例子，可以说明两个现象：第一，《狂人日记》的文本性恰恰凸显了科幻的诗学特征，它建构的是颠覆所谓正常现实感受、让人从生理到思维都感到异常的一种真实性，即中国的真相是吃人，这是石破天惊的启示，在当时违反常识与社会共同习俗，小说要建立的正是这样一种意识，要求读者接受通过白话，接受字面上传达的真实性。第二，《狂人日记》其实给予读者两个选择，要么接受文言序言的解释，相信狂人的白话是无意义的疯话，要么认同狂人，也就变成了狂人一样的革命者，做出这个选择必须经过逻辑认知上替代现实习惯的思维，也就是说，即便狂人的话语是压倒性的强烈诉说，假如没有在逻辑认知上自觉否定既成现实感受，也很难来与狂人同声相应。吴虞等学者的解说，迅速将《狂人日记》的颠覆性力量归结到文化批评上，也在此基础上产生了《狂人日记》代表中国现代批判写实文学起点的说法。但是《狂人日记》文本上的颠覆力量无法模仿，成为中国文学现代性的另类起源，而鲁迅一年之后写作的《孔乙己》才开始成为写实文学的模范文本。当然，本文提出《狂人日记》的例子，无意说《狂人日记》就是科幻小说，虽然《狂人日记》可以作为一篇病理小说，精神分析小说，神经官能症小说，但它很可能也不是写实主义最好的范例。
Carlos Yu-Kai Lin 林毓凱 (University of Pennsylvania 賓州大學東亞系)
“‘May Fourth Studies’ and Its Contemporary Challenges” (五四研究在美國的興起與衰落)
The question about how to interpret the nature of May Fourth Movement has been at the center of many debates concerning the development of Chinese history, culture, and politics. Yet the studies of “May Fourth” had met with new challenges in the twenty-first century due to a number of reasons. First, the movement became a subject of studies in the U.S. in the 1960s, in which scholars began to inquire into the nature and rise of Chinese communism. A key question debated at the time is whether the movement is responsible for, or analogous to, Chinese Cultural Revolution. The rise of “May Fourth studies” is thus essentially a reaction to the Cold War in the 1960s and 70s, a political situation that is very different from today’s world. Second, many slogans and key ideas once associated with the movement such as anti-imperialism, anti-traditionalism, science and democracy had gradually lost their critical edge in reflecting as well as addressing the political reality of contemporary China, which is no longer a small and weak nation struggling for survival but a formidable power on a global stage. The ethos of patriotism and nationalism that the movement once embodied thus lost its necessity under the new circumstances. Third, the recent trend of Sinophone studies have also challenged the literary paradigm laid by the May Fourth writers. While the former embraces the value of dialects and articulates a de-centered perspective on Chinese culture at large, the latter envisions a standardization and nationalization of Chinese language and literature. The ultimate different visions of the two discursive paradigms thus warrant our consideration. In face of these challenges, I argue that the primary task for intervening “May Fourth studies” is to designate a set of new keywords to reshape and redefine the field. It is also imperative to perceive and present May Fourth Movement as not only a cultural-political symbol of China, but also a relatable example of modern knowledge production that can be used and reflected upon in other fields of studies.
過去一個世紀以來，關於“五四”的研究一直是探討中國文化、政治、歷史發展的辯論焦點之一，但在二十一世紀的今日，“五四研究”卻面臨多重的挑戰，近年來常有論者認為“五四運動”是個被過度詮釋、過度評價的運動，“五四研究疲乏說”因此成為部分論者的時髦論調。本文以“五四研究”在美國的興起與衰落為例，說明“五四研究”在二十一世紀的三大挑戰：（一）國際情勢丕變、（二）舊五四關鍵詞的觀點限制、（三）以及新論述典範的崛起。本文認為美國“五四研究”的興與衰與冷戰有著密切的關係，該領域因此是特定時空與歷史脈絡的產物，如何因應新的國際情勢與在地的文化政治因而是“五四研究”的新課題與存活關鍵。
4:10-4:30
Coffee Break
4:30-5:30
Roundtable II: From May Fourth to the Beyond
Chair: Ellen Widmer (Wellesley College) & David Der-wei Wang (Harvard University)
Participants:
Kyle Shernuk, Jessica Tan, Tu Hang, Dingru Huang, Fangdai Chen, Jannis Chen, Peng Hai, Michael O’Krent, Yingchun Fan, Nan Qu, Joel Wing-Lun, Casey Stevens
5:30-7:00
Dinner Reception (participants only)
An international symposium to celebrate and reflect upon the monumental legacy of China’s May Fourth movement.
Speakers:
Chan, Leonard K.K.
Chan, Hok Yin
Chen Jingling
Chen Pingyuan
Chiu-Duke, Josephine
Dai Yan
Ge Zhaoguang
Hashimoto, Satoru
Hill, Michael
Hockx, Michel
Iovene, Paola
Ishii Tsuyoshi
Ko Cia-cian
Ko Eitetsu (Huang Ying-che)
Lee, BoGyeong
Li Jie
Li Wen-ching
Lin, Carlos Yu-Kai
Lomova, Olga
Ma Xiaolu
Mei, Chia-ling
Park, Younghwan
Pu Wang
Rodekohr, Andrew
Rojas, Carlos
Song Mingwei
Song Weijie
Thornber, Karen
Wang, David
Wang Xiaojue
Wagner, Rudolf
Widmer, Ellen
Xia Xiaohong
Yeh, Catherine
Chan, Leonard K.K.
Chan, Hok Yin
Chen Jingling
Chen Pingyuan
Chiu-Duke, Josephine
Dai Yan
Ge Zhaoguang
Hashimoto, Satoru
Hill, Michael
Hockx, Michel
Iovene, Paola
Ishii Tsuyoshi
Ko Cia-cian
Ko Eitetsu (Huang Ying-che)
Lee, BoGyeong
Li Jie
Li Wen-ching
Lin, Carlos Yu-Kai
Lomova, Olga
Ma Xiaolu
Mei, Chia-ling
Park, Younghwan
Pu Wang
Rodekohr, Andrew
Rojas, Carlos
Song Mingwei
Song Weijie
Thornber, Karen
Wang, David
Wang Xiaojue
Wagner, Rudolf
Widmer, Ellen
Xia Xiaohong
Yeh, Catherine
The event is sponsored by the following institutions: the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange, the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University, the Harvard University Asia Center, and the Harvard-Yenching Institute.
This event is open to the public.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/may-fourth-at-100
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/may-fourth-at-100
