想像民族耻辱：近代中国思想文化史上的“东亚病夫”zz
本又以追本溯源的方式，从厘清「东亚病夫」在不同的历史脉络中的不同意义，进而探讨它在近代中国民族想像中所扮演的重要角色。我们可以确认十九世纪末期的甲午战争，促成了「东方病夫」说在西方舆论界诞生。由于目睹当时清中国改革无效，内部问题重重，某些西方观察家以西方惯用形容类似局面的鄂图曼帝国（土耳其）的形容词－一病夫(Sick Man)，来形容表达他们所观察的清中国当时的困境。当时中国舆论界，尤其是致力于变法维新者以「逆耳忠言」态度正面看待这项源自西方的清由国「体检报告」，中国思想家也引用相同的比喻，来强调当时中国必须变革的迫切性和正当性。可是到了二十世纪初期，国民改造成为政治社会改革根本的新思潮，尤其是强国必先强种的思维，使得国民身体素质的检讨批评成为新的思想课题。在这样新的思想脉络下，「病夫」的意涵在中国的思想文化界内，被中国思想家如梁启超等操弄转化成是针对当时中国人病弱身躯的写实形容，甚至成为中国作家的自我比喻：但是在另一方面，随着民族王义意识的高涨，「病夫」论的「外来性质」也开始被强调。由于这些新的历史因素影响下，「东亚病夫」生成的原始历史背景和其单纯意义，渐渐为人所遗忘。在近代中国民族王义的滋养哺育下，「东亚病夫」成为了百年来，中国人集体记忆中，代表着傲慢无情的西方人所一直挂在嘴边，嘲笑中国和中国人的羞辱名词。简言之，这一在中国思想文化史上「成长转化」的「病夫」，不啻是中国人所创造想像的「他者的诅咒」，转而为中国人集体认同意识中的「原罪」，必须以身体技能所博得的荣耀，尤其是现代国际体育竞技场上，不断地证明其已被解咒，已被清洗。从理性思想分析的角度而言，「东亚病夫」在近代中国「生根、成长、转化」的过程中，充斥着太多认知上的谬误和不必要的情绪操弄；但也正因为如此，它百年来的历史动向不啻是近代中国人，在自我言诠和认识世界的过程中，对于西方和西方人爱憎交杂的矛盾心情的具体呈现的一页沧桑史。This study aims to explore the historical significance of the term \"Sick Man of East Asia\" in the modem Chinese intellectual and cultural history. As well known, \"The West\", as the most significant \"Other\", has figured prominently in the modern Chinese intellectual discourse. The idea of \"Sick Man of East Asia\" in particular has played an important role in the modern Chinese imagination of their national identity. It has long been regarded by many Chinese as an epithet ruthlessly imposed upon China by the Western imperialists to humiliate both China and the Chinese people, especially the poor physical quality of the Chinese people. However, this kind of understanding of this term is indeed ahistorical and full of distortions. As my research will point out, this term was initially utilized by the Western political discourse to describe the weak and corrupt condition of the Ch'ing Empire in the late 19(superscript th) century. At the time, many reform-minded Chinese intellectuals agreed with this political \"diagnosis\" of the Ch'ing China and even frequently borrowed this term to stress the necessity of embracing radical reform programs. However, in the early 20(superscript th) century, when many Chinese came to feel extremely anxious about the decline of physical prowess of the Chinese people, Chinese thinkers, such as Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, invested new meaning to the term \"Sick Man of East Asia\"-meaning all the Chinese people are seriously sick and weak beings-in order to stress the importance of the national body reform movement. In other words, the meaning of term was reinvented by the Chinese thinkers themselves to amplify the sense of national crisis in order to stimulate people's will to reform. Ironically, as time went on, the Chinese people came to regard this term as purely a contemptuous criticism on the Chinese body from the evil West, totally forgetting and ignoring the fact that the added meaning of this term is a historical product done by the Chinese thinkers in the early 20(superscript th) context and has little to do with the West. The term has therefore been appropriated time and again to mobilize and provoke xenophobia sentiments in the construction of modern Chinese collective identity. In particular, Many Chinese enthusiastically believe that victory in international sports games is the best way to \"wipe up\" the national humiliation resulting from \"Sick Man of East Asia.\" By showing the root of the \"imagined\" national humiliation and analyzing the dramatic trajectory of how \"Sick Man of East Asia\" has been manipulated by the modern Chinese nationalist discourse, this study reveals the complicated role that the West plays in the construction of modern Chinese identity and the ambivalent feeling of the modern Chinese people toward the Western culture.
国立政治大学历史学报 23期 (2005/05) 说得很深刻，早就有这种感觉了。历史上的很多说法似乎都有点像是“中国人所创造想像的「他者的诅咒」”，并且“充斥着太多认知上的谬误和不必要的情绪操弄”，比如“华人与狗不得入内”，只是某个外国人的私家花园门上挂的一块牌子，却被“生根、长大、转化”成整个帝国主义对中国人的傲慢姿态。另外，小时候读过一篇小说，说的是一个黄包车夫听到日本人说了一声“支那人”，便要与日本人撕打。总觉得“支那”似乎只是CHINA的音译，但众口同声都说这词有污辱中国人的意思，我始终没弄明白，似乎也是一种“想象的民族耻辱”？
为防某些人曲解，我必须画蛇添足地声明一下：我的话绝没有抹煞帝国主义侵略中国的历史的意思，只是对某些常用的说法有一点疑惑，觉得似乎不是那么回事。或许有方家可以解说一下？ 非常欣赏这种研究角度，从一个细小的词汇来关照近代中国人的心理状态和情感世界的变化及矛盾。很受启发。记得王尔敏先生也经常以主题词为中心进行思想史研究，近年来国内也曾有过这样的思考角度，但明显和者不多，更多的仍然是以宏观叙事的方式对近代历史进行粗放式研究。 不是想不到这样研究，而是怕.......
说句不中听的话，这种思路只会是流星式的研究，熄火后只有等上一段时间再出现一颗，流星式地启蒙启蒙再启蒙，展现其优美的分形结构
主流不可能“容纳”这种思路
页:
[1]