国民文学论争:分裂的“后五四”与文艺改塑的先兆  

Debate on National Literature:the Split“Post-May Fourth”Movement and the Precursor of Literature and Art Reforms

作　　者：高强[1] GAO Qiang(School of Literature,Southwest University,Chongqing 400715)

机构地区：[1]西南大学文学院,重庆400715

出　　处：《中国文学研究》2020年第2期129-135,174,共8页Research of Chinese Literature

基　　金：中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目“民族国家文学研究”(SWU1709103)。

摘　　要：1920年代中期,曾发生过一场小范围的"国民文学"论争,论争的焦点问题集中在传统与欧化、本土与外来的关系上。郑伯奇、穆木天等不满于新文学过于强烈的欧化色彩,因而倡导国民文学,主张对本土和传统艺术资源进行汲取。钱玄同、林语堂则批评国民文学论是浅薄自大的爱国主义行为,拥护"爽爽快快讲欧化之一法"。周作人左右出击,对国民文学观念持有保留的认可态度。鲁迅虽未直接参与"国民文学"论争,但有关"国民"的话题却是他持续思考的重心,主张大胆吸取外国思想资源,时刻警惕传统与本土言论的思想危害,则是鲁迅始终抱持的思想态度。这些互有差异的观点,折射出了"后五四"时期知识界分化裂变的图景,并在一定程度上预兆出了后续的文艺改塑途径。In the mid-1920 s,there was a small-scale debate on national literature,which focused on the relationship between tradition and Europeanization,localization and foreignness.Zheng Boqi and Mu Mutian were not satisfied with the strong Europeanization of the new literature,so they advocated the national literature and the absorption of the local and traditional art resources.Qian Xuantong and Lin Yutang criticized the theory of national literature as a shallow and arrogant act of patriotism,and supported"the frank and quick talk about Europeanization".Zhou Zuoren attacked around and held a reserved attitude towards the concept of national literature.Although Lu Xun did not directly participate in the debate on national literature,the national topic was the focus of his continuous thoughts.He advocated bold absorption of foreign ideological resources,and was always vigilant against the ideological harm of traditional and local speech,which was Lu Xun’s ideological attitude all the time.These different views refract the prospect of intellectual differentiation and fission in the period of the post-May fourth and foreshadow the way of subsequent reform to a certain extent.

关 键 词：国民文学 新文学 “后五四” 思想分裂 文艺改塑 

分 类 号：I206.6[文学—中国文学]