From Kang Youwei

从康有为到邓小平 From Kang Youwei to Deng Xiaoping[z1] [z1]发表在期刊的标题为《张三世：中国道路中的改良或改革问题》。
 
发表于 2016-11-10 18:05    来源：转载 [阅读](178) 评论(0)         
整理者：曾亦
来源：作者授权 儒家网 发布
原载于《天府新论》2016年第6期
时间：孔子二五六七年岁次丙申十月初七日壬辰 
耶稣2016年11月6日
【主要发言】                          Main Presenters
唐文明  清华大学哲学系        Tang Wenming               Department of Philosophy, Tsinghua University

曾   亦  同济大学哲学系         Zeng Yi                            Department of Philosophy, Tongji University.  [SO2]  In our version, Zeng Yi is associated with the 北京大学.  Hongbin suggested we change this into 同济大学 according to the version published on the new Tianfu review. 

【补充发言】                          Other Presenters
郝兆宽  复旦大学哲学学院     Hao Zhaokuan                School of Philosophy, Fudan University

陈壁生  中国人民大学国学院          Chen Bisheng         School of Chinese Classics[SO3] In English = guoxue or national learning are most frequently used translations.  See for example: http://www.cefc.com.hk/issue/china-perspectives-2011-1/
Q: Should we leave this open for our colleagues to say what they think?
ZHB: According to the office website http://guoxue.ruc.edu.cn/ it is School of Chinese Classics.
DO:  Yes, for these kinds of questions, go to the web site of the Chinese institution.  They very often have English translations.  Sometimes the translations are not the same as the ones we would use, but for the name of an institution we don’t need to quibble. 

齐义虎  同济大学哲学系         Qi Yihu                 Department of Philosophy, Tongji University

郭晓东  复旦大学哲学学院     Guo Xiaodong              School of Philosophy, Fudan University

吴增定  北京大学哲学系         Wu Zengding                  Department of Philosophy, Peking University

郑宗义  香港中文大学哲学系 Zheng Zongyi                 Department of Philosophy，
Chinese University of Hong Kong

陈  明  首都师范大学哲学系   Chen Ming            Department of Philosophy Capital Normal University

方旭东  华东师范大学哲学系 Fang Xudong                  Department of Philosophy
East China Normal University

陈乔见  华东师范大学哲学系 Chen Qiaojian                 Department of Philosophy
East China Normal University

洪  橙  英国伦敦大学国王学院 Hong Cheng                 King's College London
 
1.【郝兆宽】我体会议程的安排，好像认为现代中国思想主要有两条脉络[DO4]Thread is good.  脉络is used a lot, and can mean thread, context, stream… ：一条是明显的革命脉络，另一条则是以前不大明显、现在越来越成为主流的改革或改良的脉络。前面一场讨论[DO5] This discussion is one of three，是讲革命这条脉络。因为就中国现代历史来说，革命发端于孙中山，最后到毛泽东的文化大革命，达到了高潮。那么，本场讨论则是讲改革或改良的脉络。就现代中国来说，改良或改革的思潮发端于康有为，到了邓小平，这条脉络开始呈现出来，直到今天，改革的浪潮还是方兴未艾。我想，本场讨论的主旨，应该是站在儒家的角度，来理解现代思想中改良或改革这条脉络。
1. [Hao Zhaokuan] Acording to my understanding of the program’s agenda, it seems to suggest that modern Chinese thought has two main “threads” : one is a clear revolutionary thread, the other one—previously not so obvious but now increasingly becoming the mainstream—is the reformist thread. The previous discussion was about (centered on) the revolutionary thread. Because ---- as far as modern Chinese history is concerned, revolution originated with Sun Yat-sen and eventually reached the climax in Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution ----- then this[DO6] or Today's  discussion will be about the reformist (thought) thread.  In modern China, reformist thought originated with Kang Youwei and started featuring (more prominently) began to emerge with Deng Xiaoping. Until today, the wave of reform is still rising The reformist wave remains in the ascendance today. I think that the main purpose of this discussion should be to understand the reformist thread (of thinking) or the thread of reformist thought within modern Chinese thought from the Confucian standpoint.
 
2. 下面先请唐文明教授发言。
2. Let us first ask Professor Tang Wenming to say a few words.
 
3.【唐文明】我昨天拿到会议议程时，发现把我安排到这一场发言，还真不大明白曾亦这样安排的意图。（众笑）
3. [Tang Wenming] When I got the program’s agenda yesterday and realized/found that I was scheduled for this discussion, I really couldn’t understand the intention behind this kind of arrangement. (audience laughs).  This is a joke, so we would probably make it more informal.  Something like:  When I got the program yesterday and saw that I was scheduled to speak, I really wondered what Zeng Yi was thinking.
 
4.【曾  亦】咱俩不都是研究康有为的么？（自笑）
4. [Zeng Yi] Aren’t we both studying Kang Youwei? (laughs) Well, we’re both studying Kang Youwei, aren’t we?
 
5.【唐文明】但是，这一场为什么会讨论邓小平呢？昨天晚上，我和曾亦一起聊天，曾亦说到左派无法理解邓小平，但是，这却是左派必须面对、却又无法真正面对的问题。确实，我看到很多左派在谈到邓小平时，最后只能回到毛泽东。譬如，左派常常强调邓小平改革的成就是出于毛时代奠立的工业基础，甚至认为，中国的改革没有落到苏联那样的瓦解下场，也是因为毛的缘故。所以，我觉得曾亦安排这场讨论的意图，还是想让左翼和儒家进行有效的对话。当然这只是我的猜测，不管怎样，我下面就按照这个思路来发言了。（众笑）
5. [Tang Wenming] But why talk about Deng Xiaoping here? Last night Zeng Yi and I were chatting and he said that the left wing can’t understand Deng Xiaoping. This really is a question the left wing must face – but is incapable of genuinely facing. Indeed, I’ve seen many leftists who eventually have to return to Mao Zedong when they discuss about Deng Xiaoping or who, when trying to talk about Deng Xiaoping wind up talking about Mao Zedong. For example, leftists often stress that the achievements of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms are based on the industrial foundation laid in the Mao era and even believe that the [very] reason why China’s reforms did not deteriorate into a disintegration like the Soviet Union is also because of Mao. Therefore, I think that Zeng Yi’s motive in arranging this discussion has in fact been to facilitate good! an effective dialogue between the left wing and the Confucians. Of course, this is only my guess. At any rate, my speech below will follow this line of thought. (audience laughs)  again, all of this is informal, so the last line would be something like “Anyway, this is what I’m going to talk about.”  The context for this is that Zeng Yi is a “Maoist Confucian” while Tang is just a Confucian.  So they’re making jokes about the differences in their intellectual opinions, Tang accusing Zeng—humorously—of manipulating him into a certain position.
 
6.【郝兆宽】你的理解应该没错。（众笑）
6. [Hao Zhaokuan] Your understanding should be correct. (audience laughs)  Informal:  I think you’ve got it figured out.
 
7.【曾  亦】中国历史上，最有代表性的两个王朝，一个就是汉朝，一个就是明朝。这两个王朝在统治思想上有个共同点，就是本出身草莽，但最后能够反正，回归到正统的儒家，非常了不起。现在的左派却不知反正，缺乏卸“马甲”的意识，抱残守缺，把手段当成了目的。马克思主义源出于西方，本不具有普遍性，那么，中国共产党应该有反正的勇气。否则，左派对中国及儒家的理解，始终就是表面的。当然，我同意文明的努力，应该重新讨论左派的“遗产”，哪些是应该继承的，哪些是应该抛弃的。
7. [Zeng Yi] The two most representative dynasties in Chinese history are the Han Dynasty and Ming Dynasty. In terms of their ruling ideologies, the two dynasties have one thing in common: they [both] originated in grass roots 草莽 is more like outlaws, or righteous outlaws, like 草莽英雄.  Grass roots is too neutral, just means “the people”, but were eventually capable of returning to the right path, returning to the Confucian orthodoxy --- this is truly great. Nowadays leftists don’t know how to return to the right path, they lack the awareness to take off their armor, are conservative, and take/regard means as goals  Today’s left wing refuses to return to the right path, they are unwilling to take off their armor, they cling to their old ways, they confuse means and ends. Marxism originated in the West and is ultimately not universal 本不具有 has the sense of “was never meant to be”, so the Chinese Communist Party should have the courage to return to the right path. Otherwise the left wings’ understanding of China and of Confucianism will always remain superficial. Of course, I agree with Wenming’s efforts or all of Wenming’s hard work, there is a need or we have to revisit “legacies” or heritage of the left wing, [and decide/establish] [SO7] which legacies should be inherited, which ones discarded.  To remaini informal:  decide what to keep and what to throw away.
 
8.【唐文明】那么，我首先想提出一个问题：谁是现代中国的立法者[SO8] ？西方古典的政治哲学家，如柏拉图，以及注重古典资源的现代政治哲学家，如卢梭，都喜欢讲“立法者”这个概念。我先摆出自己的想法，供大家批评。我认为，康有为就是现代中国的立法者。无论孙中山，还是毛泽东，都算不上。为什么呢？我觉得，先要区分立法者与建国者这两个概念。卢梭曾专门谈到，立法者并不享受建国的荣誉，因为其意义可能要过好几代才能被认识到。至于建国者，因为掌握了世俗的权力[SO9] ，则可以按照立法者的构想而把国家建构起来。
8. [Tang Wenming] Well then, I would first like to ask a question So let me start with a question: Who is the conceptual founder [lit. “law-maker”] of modern China? Western classical political philosophers, such as Plato, and modern political philosophers focusing on classical resources, such as Rousseau or who study classical thinkers like Rousseau, all like to talk about this concept of “law-maker[OD10] ”. I’ll first put forward my own ideas and then everyone can criticize. I believe Kang Youwei to be the “founder” of modern China. Neither Sun Yat-Sen norMao Zedong can be regarded as a founder. Why? I think that we must first distinguish between the two concepts: of a “law-maker” and of a “state-builder”. Rousseau once specifically mentioned that “law-makers” do not enjoy the honor of or are not respected like “state-builders”, because their significance may take several generations to be recognized. As for the “state-builders”, because they have mastered more like seized or grasped secular political power, they can build a state according to the ideas of the “law-makers”.
9.【陈壁生】按照公羊家[1]的说法，孔子作《春秋》，却是“为汉制法”。到了宋人那里，《春秋》又是“为宋制法”，乃至“为万世制法”。就是说，孔子《春秋》作为“一王之法”的地位，是到后世才确立的。你是这个意思吗？
9.  [Chen Bisheng] According to the Gongyang School, Confucius wrote "Spring and Autumn Annals" to "establish the law maybe institutions? One of the problems here is that “law” is not as central to the Chinese tradition as it is to the West…so there are a lot of false, or half, equivalences for Han". In the time of Song dynasty, or When we get to the Song, "Spring and Autumn Annals" became rendered as "establishing the law for Song" and even "establishing the law/system of all ages." In other words, the status of Confucius’ “Spring and Autumn Annals” as the “law of one king or the kingly way” was established only in later generations. Is this what you mean?  I’m not exactly sure what this question means.  Kang Youwei used the Gongyang tradition to make his radical claims about Confucianism.  The current New Confucians also identify with the Gongyang tradition.  So that, at least, will require a footnote.  I guess the point of his question is just to reinforce that from the time when someone conceives an idea, to the time of its elaboration in practice, can be quite long
 
11. 康有为自戊戌流亡以后，其思想主要有三点：其一，共和宪政，当时已是大势所趋了。其二，国权统一，这体现为他的君主制主张。当然，君主制在今天的中国已经不可能了，但是，我觉得，还是需要一种替代物。其三，国教，这是现代中国应有的部分，可惜，这个前景还没有浮现出来。我们看到，康有为接受了共和国的现实，即便他主张君主制，也只是“虚君共和”[SO11] 而已。但是，对于共和政治可能导致的暴民危机，康有为又有着很深的警惕。我认为，无论他的国教论，还是“虚君共和”的主张，都是为了给共和国保驾[SO12] 护航。在我看来，康有为的一些论述，与托克维尔有非常接近的地方。因为康有为清醒意识到，对于共和国来说，如果没有君主制，没有国教，终有分裂之虞。可以说，直到现在，中国还没有摆脱这个危险。我想，我们现在重新思考康有为，乃至回到康有为，其意义正在这里。
11. After Kang Youwei’s exile in 1898, his thought had three main points or went in three major directions. First: republican constitutionalism, [which] had become a world trend at the time. Second: unified national sovereignty, [SO13] [which] is reflected in his advocacy for monarchy. Of course, the monarchy is no longer possible in today's China. However, I think, there still exists a need for some kind of substitute. Third: state religion; this is a part/segment that modern China should have or something that modern China needs, but unfortunately, this prospect has not yet emerged or trends have not moved in that direction. We can see that Kang Youwei accepted the reality of the republic, even though he advocated for a monarchy, it was merely a constitutional monarchy with limited powers for the monarch. But Kang Youwei was also deeply alert to aware of the mob crisis mob mentality or populist danger that republican politics could produce. I think that both his “state religion” theory and his advocacy of “constitutional monarchy”, were meant to protect the Republic. In my opinion, some of Kang Youwei's arguments are very close to Tocqueville.[2] [This is] because Kang Youwei was clearly aware that, as far as a republic is concerned, in the absence of a monarchy and of state religion, eventually there will appear the danger of national division. It can be said that, until now, China has not yet escaped this danger One might say that this is a danger that China faces even now. I think that is exactly the significance of our now rethinking Kang Youwei and even returning to Kang Youwei.
 
10.【唐文明】壁生说得很好，我就是这意思。因此，康有为生前虽多为时人误解，但是，今天我们终于可以理解康有为的意义了，现在还不到百年，比起孔子的遭遇，还不算太晚。
10. [Tang Wenming] Bisheng said it well, this is exactly what I mean. Therefore, although Kang Youwei was often misunderstood during his lifetime, today we can finally understand the significance of Kang Youwei. It hasn’t been one hundred years yet, in comparison to Confucius’ misfortune, [so] it is still not late. The idea is that it took much longer for Confucius to be recognized/understood.
 
12.【曾  亦】文明讲得非常好。其实，当初孔子栖栖遑遑，不仅不为时主所用，且屡遭人误解，甚至是嘲讽，直到几百年后，其思想才真正被汉人所理解[OD14] 。孔子尚且如此，何况康有为呢？
12. [Zeng Yi] Wenming says it very well we would probably just say I agree with Wenming. In fact, during his life time, Confucius was not only not used by the kings of that time, but was also repeatedly misunderstood and even ridiculed, until hundreds of years later when his thoughts were finally truly understood by the Han people. [The situation] is still the same with Confucius, but what about Kang Youwei?  Saying the same thing as the previous speaker.  Given that it took this long for Confucius to be recognized, why should it not be the same for Kang Youwei?
 
13.【唐文明】假设我的看法可以成立的话，那么，我们以此去评判現代中国史，会得出一些不同的看法。可以说，共产党建立的党国，其实是过去君主制和国教的替代物。这个观点梁漱溟早就讲过，辛亥革命推翻了君主制，但是，中国还是要建立一个功能上替代君主的政治组织。从这个角度来看，共产党国家的意义，完全可以纳入到儒家思想里面来，我觉得，这正是左翼可以与儒家对话的地方。
13. [Tang Wenming] Let’s assume that my views can be tenable If my viewpoint is acceptable, then, if we judge modern Chinese history in this way we could come up with some different opinions/views. We can say that the Party State established by the [Chinese] Communist Party is a substitute for the past constitutional monarchy and state religion. Liang Shuming already pointed out that the 1919 Revolution overthrew the monarchy[SO15] , but China still had to establish a political organization that could functionally replace the monarchy. Looking from this perspective, the significance of the Communist state can be fully incorporated within the Confucian standpoint. I think this is the place where the left wing can communicate with Confucians.
 


[1] SO: Should something like this be explained? DO:  Yes!
ZHB: I agree with you. Benjamin Elman’s research is a good reference.

[2] Should Tocqueville be succinctly explained/introduced here?  Yes.  He had similar concerns about populism and continuity.







 

 [OD5]
 [OD6]Or “today’s”

 [SO7]This doesn’t appear in the original but seems appropriate in English.
ZHB: I agree with you.
DO:  me too
 

 [SO8]Who is the law-maker of modern China?
 
Legislator would be a more elegant way of translating this phrase … but 立法者is contrasted with “state-establishers” 建国者 … so individual characters within the phrase matter.
 
Please advise regarding the best solution here.
 
ZHB: I guess legislator is better because Chinese writers use legislator after Zygmunt Bauman‘s’ Legislators and Interpreters. We’d better look up to Plato’s and Rousseau’s works.
DO:  This is a term that comes up a lot in the writings of contemporary Chinese intellectuals.  I think the origin is Rousseau…My sense is that what we would say in English is more like “founder,” or something that would mean “the one who first had the idea”  maybe “conceptual founder”

 [SO9]Q4: Not quite sure what “secular powers” exactly means …. Hongbin do you know what he is saying here?
ZHB: Secular power means political power here, relative to legislator who establish the ideology.
SO: Should we explain this to our readers in a footnote?
DO:  Perhaps.  But I think we can probably make it clear in the text.

 [OD10]I think that this will require a footnote.  What he means is “who set the stage for the development of modern China in intellectual terms”, or “whose ideas are at the origin of modern China.”  For reasons that maybe Hongbing can tell us, 立法者 has come to be the term that they use.  In common English, “legislator” means a member of an assembly with power to pass laws, which cannot be what they mean.  Law-maker is more comprehensible, but still a bit puzzling…

 [SO11]Hongbin suggests : constitutional monarchy … but 共和 relates more intimately to the notion of a ‘republic’ … so: not quite sure we have the best solution here.

 [SO12]Dictionary says this is a word used humorously … not sure we conveyed this in the translation.
DO:  I don’t know if we are missing a nuance.  Hongbin?  What do you think?

 [SO13]We are not quite sure we solved this correctly and would appreciate ideas
DO:  I think you’ve basically got it.  Kang supported the monarchy as a measure of continuity.  The people needed something/someone concrete to look up to.  The Republic was too abstract.

 [OD14]Why 汉人?  Is this a racial statement?

 [SO15]Dictionaries simply say : monarchy … but shouldn’t here be empire? Qing was an empire – no?
ZHB: I cannot distinguish monarchy and empire.
SO: to be honest – not sure if I can do so either – but am used to a “Qing empire” syntagma … hence the comment.
DO:  I think monarchy is ok.  They are talking about political forms.