學術與政治之間 : 徐復觀與錢穆的合與分 = In the midst of academics and politics : the cooperation and the falling apart of Xu Fuguan and Qian Mu
Author(s)Zhang, Fanjing (張璠璟)
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractPolyU Library Call No.: [THS] LG51 .H577M CC 2015 Zhang
作為文化保守主義陣營的代表，當代新儒家恆被學界視為鐵板一塊，而他們內部的爭論與分歧卻經常被忽略。本文通過追蹤徐復觀與錢穆二位先生的交往過程，分析兩者關係由親近至疏離的各種原因，藉以打破學界一貫將新儒家視為一個整體性的認知。本文主要採用錢穆與徐復觀之間的往來書信以及文章辯難為資料，結合時代背景和兩者的人生經歷，梳理各自思想特質的共同點，以及兩人出於對時代的回應，個人治學路數的不同而造成的學術和政治觀念的歧異。除了緒論和結論外，文章再分為四章。第一章分析了徐復觀和錢穆早期的交往過程，證明二人在上世紀四十年代末至五十年代初，不僅是文化保守和反共陣營中的同袍，也是各自事業發展上志同道合的夥伴。後三章則分別由錢、徐二人的幾次公開論戰切入。第二章主要討論了由於治學理路的不同錢穆受到時風影響的傳統考據 vs.徐復觀冶義理與考據於一爐的現代學術而造成了二人的對儒家經典的不同解讀。此外，通過唐君毅、牟宗三在各自的書信中對這場論辯的態度可見，雖然在這場傳統考據和現代學術的對壘中，徐復觀得到了新儒家同儕一致的支持，但在「尊師重道」的中國傳統語境下，徐復觀與作為長輩的錢穆的友情卻拉開了破裂的序幕，致使 1957年 9月錢、徐二人的通信戛然而止。第三章揭示了由於不同的人生經歷，錢、徐二人對「民主」的體認大相徑庭。錢穆雖強調「民主」的重要性，然亦受動於其守護中國文化的強烈意願，且囿於「書齋學者」的生命形態，對傳統政治在實際運作的各種弊端欠缺深刻的體知，故在其推崇傳統的士人政府之時，卻未意識到此一含有明顯菁英主義思想的模式，究其實帶有專制的意涵。徐復觀則由於同時受到傳統儒家思想和參預現實政治經歷的影響，對民主的認識實有不同於錢穆的更深刻之處。將「儒家精神」與「自由民主」作為生命中兩大主題的徐復觀，在詮釋儒家學說時帶有鮮明的個人色彩，他強調儒家與專制王權的長期抗爭，與錢穆之強調中國傳統思想的「圓融」與「和諧」形成對比。徐氏受到了儒家傳統的熏陶，在學術乃至人生上都以「成就德行」為昀高標準，因而亦難逃舊式知識分子將「立德」作為昀高目標的窠臼。本文第四章揭示了兩者所爭論的焦點，端在傳統中國政制是否專制，以及中國未來的民主之路該如何前行的問題上，同時亦暴露了二人皆無可避免地受到了時風世勢的影響這一事實，以及各自觀點上的局限之處。錢穆傾向於秉承孫中山「三民主義」的說法，認為具有道德、智慧的精英分子握有政治權力，便可保證每一個人的真正自由與平等，卻忽略了這一理想中本身包含的「將政治道德化」的專制意涵。徐復觀提倡保障消極自由，以及對中國傳統文化「擇其善者而從之」。儘管現實的政治經歷使得徐復觀在近代中國的民主思潮中並未完全遵從主流社會的觀點，然而受儒家經世思想的感染，他放大了人的主觀意識對歷史進程的作用，認為一切問題都是思想意識問題，要藉由思想意識解決。錢穆與徐復觀的交往過程，不僅體現了新儒家.部的異同，也同時體現了以救亡圖存為己任的中國知識分子在時代巨變影響下的傳統與現代的拉鋸，以及徘徊於學術、政治、人生之間的張力。
As a group of scholars of bespeaking cultural conservatism, the contemporary neo-Confucianists are considered as a unified school, and the interchange and disagreements among its members are therefore often overlooked. Xu Fuguan and Qian Mu, two twentieth-century neo-Confucianists, started off as allies but later parted on bad terms. This thesis analyses the reasons for the change in their relationship by examining the interactions between them over time, debunking in the process the misconception that there is no disagreement among the contemporary NeoConfucianists. Taking into consideration of the historical background and their life experiences, this study compares and contrasts the thoughts of Xu and Qian, their respective responses to the call of their time, their scholarly and political disagreements that result in the differences in their academic approaches. The correspondence and debates between them and other relevant materials comprise the core of the primary resources of this thesis. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this study consists of four chapters. The first chapter analyses the interactions between Xu Fuguan and Qian Mu in the early years of their acquaintance, showing that, from the late 1940s to the early 1950s, they were not only allies within the cultural conservative and anti-communist camp, but also like-minded personal friends. The following three chapters each starts with one of the public debates between them. The second chapter explains in the main the difference in the way Qian Mu and Xu Fuguan interprets Confucian thoughts that results from the differences of their academic approaches — Qian’s traditional evidential scholarship as influenced by contemporaneous scholarly trends on the one hand, and Xu’s modern scholarship which evidential scholarship plays a secondary role to the study of the history of Confucian doctrines on the other. Furthermore, it documents, with the correspondence between Tang Junyi and Mou Zongsan as evidence, how Xu was widely supported by his fellow Neo-Confucianists in his arguments with Qian. However, in the context of the traditional Chinese notion “Zun
Shi Zhong Dao (Obey one’s teachers and respect the traditions they represent)”, Xu’s “victory” over Qian, his social senior, came with a price. It signifies the beginning of the irreparable fracture in their friendship, leading to an abrupt end in their communications in September 1957. The third chapter reveals that, because of their different life experiences, Xu and Qian hold very different views on democracy. While Qian Mu emphasized the importance of democracy, his strong will to defend Chinese culture and his selfidentification as a “scholar disinterested in politics” deprive him of a thorough understanding of the actual drawbacks of traditional political actions. Consequently, he held the conventional scholar-bureaucrat government in very high esteem, he failed to take note of its autocratic implications and elitist character. By contrast, influenced by both his Confucian thoughts and his participation in politics, Xu Fuguan had a more profound understanding of democracy than Qian. With the Confucian spirit and liberal democracy as the two main concerns of his life, Xu had a highly unique way in explaining Confucian ideas. By emphasizing the long-standing conflicts between the Confucianists and the autocratic monarchy, Xu contrasted with Qian in that the latter emphasized the two traditional concepts of “assimilation” and “harmony”. Yet, informed by the Confucian thoughts, Xu took “to accomplish exemplary virtues” as his ultimate goal in both academic life and real life, and in this way, failed also to liberate himself from the traditional expectations of an intellectual. The fourth chapter reveals the focal points of their debates over the contended autocratic nature of traditional Chinese political system and the progress of democracy in China. Qian was inclined to Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People, whereby he believed that as long as the wise and virtuous elites were in power, true freedom and equality for all could be assured. At the same time, he overlooked the autocratic implications of “taking politics as the highest manifestation of morality”. Xu’s emphasized the importance of assuring negative liberty for people, while his advocation to hold on to the good but discard the bad of traditional Chinese culture makes him stand out from the main-stream thoughts. Yet, like Qian, Xu was at least in part a product of Confucianism, and as such believed that all issues are ideologically based and must be resolved ideologically. In this way, he exemplified the effect of human consciousness on the progress of history. The interaction between Qian Mu and Xu Fuguan not only reflected the similarities and differences among the Neo-Confucianists, but also the struggle of those Chinese intellectuals who gave themselves to saving their motherland in face of the tug-of-war between tradition and modernity on the one hand and the tension that sustains between scholarship, politics, and life on the other.
Department of Chinese Culture
M.Phil., Dept. of Chinese Culture, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2015.