“两种文化?C.P.斯诺的意义”:回顾与思辨
|
摘要
C.P.斯诺题为"两种文化与科学革命"和利维斯题为"两种文化?C.P.斯诺的意义"的两场演讲引起西方知识界对人文文化和科学文化"两种文化之争"的关注。"两种文化之争"本质上是与文化密切相关的历史观、教育观和社会发展观之争,是传统与现代、人文与技术、物质文明与精神文化之争,关涉到人类观察世界、认识世界和改造世界的方法和方案上的不同思考和价值选择,对于中国大学当下人文和科学的价值定位具有参照意义。
Two lectures,namely"Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution"of C.P.Snow and"Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow"of F.R.Leavis,have attracted extensive attention of Western intelligentsia’s concern upon"two cultures controversy"between humanistic culture and scientific culture.In fact,the nature of"two cultures controversy"was the dispute of views among history,education and social development,which were closely related to the culture;the dispute of tradition and modernity,humanity and technology,material civilization and spiritual culture,involving different considerations and value choices upon approaches and plans of human’s observation,understanding and change of the world.Thus,it is of great significance of reference for the value positioning of humanity and science in universities in modern China.
Two lectures,namely"Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution"of C.P.Snow and"Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow"of F.R.Leavis,have attracted extensive attention of Western intelligentsia’s concern upon"two cultures controversy"between humanistic culture and scientific culture.In fact,the nature of"two cultures controversy"was the dispute of views among history,education and social development,which were closely related to the culture;the dispute of tradition and modernity,humanity and technology,material civilization and spiritual culture,involving different considerations and value choices upon approaches and plans of human’s observation,understanding and change of the world.Thus,it is of great significance of reference for the value positioning of humanity and science in universities in modern China.
引文
[1]D.Graham Burnett,“A View from the Bridge:The Two Cultures Debate,Its Legacy,and the History of Science”,Daedalus128.2,Spring,1999.
[2]Guy Ortolano,The“Two Cultures”Controversy:C.P.Snow,F.R.Leavis,and Cultural Politics in Post-war Britain,Cambridge:Cambridge UP,2011.
[3]G.H.Bantock,“A Scream of Horror”,The Listener,17September,1959.
[4]Michael Yudkin,“Sir Charles Snow’s Rede Lecture”,originally printed in the Cambridge Review,rpt.in Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow,London:Chatto&Windus,1962.
[5]Ian Mackillop,F.R.Leavis:A Life in Criticism,London:Penguin Books,1995.
[6]F.R.Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow.,London:Chatto&Windus,1962.
[7]C.P.Snow,The Two Cultures,with Indroduction by Stephen Collini,Cambridge vP,1998.
[8]Lionel Trilling,“Science,Literature and Culture:A Comment on the Leavis-Snow Controversy”,Commentary33,1962.
[9]Guy Ortolano,“F.R.Leavis,Science,and the Abiding Crisis of Modern Civilization”,History of Science 43,2005.
[10]John Henry Newman,The Idea of a University,ed.Harold Bloom,New York:Chelsea House,1983.
[11]Robert Whelan,“Introduction:Any Culture at all Would be Nice”,ed.Frank Furedi et al.,From Two Cultures to No Culture:C.P.Snow’s“Two Cultures”Lecture Fifty Years On,Civitas,2009.
[12]Leavis,“The Idea of a University”,in Education and the U-niversity:A Sketch for an English School,2nd ed.,Cambridge:Cambridge UP,1943.
[13]Francis Bacon,The New Organon and Related Writings,ed.,Fulton H.Anderson,New York:The Liberal Arts Press,1960.
[14]Stephen Collini,“Introduction”,The Two Cultures by C.P.Snow,Cambridge:Cambridge UP,1998.
[15]Matthew Arnold,Literature and Science,The Nineteenth Century XII,August 1882.
[16]张君劢、丁文江等著:《科学与人生观》,济南:山东人民出版社,1997年。
[17]梅贻琦:《大学一解》,《大学的意义》,苏州:古吴轩出版社,2016年。
(1)见C.P.Snow,The Two Cultures,with Introduction by Stephen Collini(Cambridge:Cambridge UP,1998)p.10,p.22。需要指出的是,发达国家向发展国家输出的不仅是技术,还有文化、价值观念、生活方式,在技术输出过程中,对欠发达国家原材料和劳动力的掠夺和剥削,并将其变成世界工厂是新帝国主义的运行逻辑。
(2)例如,Walter Allen,“A Discussion of C.P.Snow’s Views,”Encounter(August 1959):pp.67-68;A.C.B.Lovell,“AUnified Culture,”ibid.,p.68;and Bertrand Russell,“Snobbery,”ibid.,p.71,参见Guy Ortolano,“F.R.Leavis,Science,and the Abiding Crisis of Modern Civilization,”History of Science 43(2005):p.185。
(3)见Stephen Collini,“Introduction,”The Two Cultures by C.P.Snow,p.xxx。
(1)利维斯的名作《伟大的传统》开拓了小说批评的先河,因此对“何谓小说”自感有很大的发言权。斯诺的小说,人物扁平,构思肤浅,很难进入利维思的法眼,但斯诺却一直做着问鼎诺奖的美梦。参见GuyOrtolano,The Two Cultures Controversy,p.44,p.99,p.255。
(1)见F.R.Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow,p.13,p.14。被利维斯列入“英国小说的伟大传统”之列的小说家威廉·詹姆斯认为好的小说家善于“展示”而不是“讲述”。
(2)斯诺对传统文化的指责主要是,传统文化所统治的世界在经济和政治上都受益于19世纪工业革命所创造的财富,但它却不愿意教育年轻人,让他们理解并参与这场革命。“传统文化越是变得富有,便越远离工业革命,它为管理政府、印度帝国和延续文化本身而教育年轻人,却从不让他们理解或参与工业革命”。他认为有远见的人看到了培养更多科学人才、尤其是应用科学人才的必要性,但是传统文化不肯听取他们的建议,纯理论的科学家们也不大在意.总之,英国“学术界与工业革命没有任何关系”。见F.R.Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow,p.23。
(1)见F.R.Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow,p.20。利维斯和劳伦斯等英国作家对于个体生存状态的强调和关注,与马克思的“每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的前提和条件”不谋而合。马克思的未来社会发展目标是“一个真正‘人性’的社会,即以‘人的全面发展’(克服工业社会的人‘的片面发展’)为标志的全新社会(恩格斯称之为‘人类史前的结束’和‘真正人的历史的开始’)”。参见甘阳《儒学与现代---兼论儒学与当代中国》,《古今中西之争》,北京:三联书店,2006年,第125页。
(2)见C.P.Snow,The Two Cultures,p.8。在尾注6中,斯诺将乔治·奥威尔的《1984》作为“最典型的希望未来不存在”的例子,这一点他并没看错,奥威尔对未来资本主义社会的基本态度是拒绝和绝望。参见C.P.Snow,The Two Cultures,p.101。
(1)参见Guy Ortolano,The Two Cultures Controversy,p.66;Guy Ortolano,“F.R.Leavis,Science,and the Abiding Crisis of Modern Civilization,”History of Science43(2005):p.161。
(2)F.R.Leavis,English Literature in Our Timeand the University.p.3,p.28,p.40,pp.65-65.
(3)The Richmond Lecture as a classic:Leavis to Parsons,25June1962,Chatto and Windus;Leavis to J.Schwartz,19 March1964,Harvard:Houghton,autograph fi le;Leavis to Parsons again,16January 1968,Chatto and Windus.Recited from Ortolano,“F.R.Leavis,Science,and the Abiding Crisis of Modern Civilization,”History of Science,Note 90.
(1)参见GuyOrtolano,The Two Cultures Controversy,pp.151-159。中国当下的社会科学与人文学之争可以放在此框架中予以考察。参见陈平原《当代中国人文学之“内外兼修”》,熊思东等编《通识教育与大学:中国的探索》,北京:科学出版社,2010年,第28-55页。
(2)参见GuyOrtolano,The Two Cultures Controversy,p.44,p.99,p.255。
(1)参见Thomas Huxley,“Science and Culture”,Science and Education:Essays(London,1893)pp.134-59,rpt.in Prose of the Victorian Period,ed.,William E.Buckler(Boston:Houghton Mifflin,1958)pp.526-537。
(1)对于“进步理论”的分析和批判对理解“两种文化之争”有至关重要的意义。参阅陈丹青《退步集》,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005年;黄梅《不肯进取》,沈阳:辽宁出版社,1996年;黄梅《推敲“自我”---小说在18世纪英国》,北京:三联书店,2003年;殷企平《推敲“进步”话语---新型小说在19世纪英国》,北京:商务印书馆,2009年。
[2]Guy Ortolano,The“Two Cultures”Controversy:C.P.Snow,F.R.Leavis,and Cultural Politics in Post-war Britain,Cambridge:Cambridge UP,2011.
[3]G.H.Bantock,“A Scream of Horror”,The Listener,17September,1959.
[4]Michael Yudkin,“Sir Charles Snow’s Rede Lecture”,originally printed in the Cambridge Review,rpt.in Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow,London:Chatto&Windus,1962.
[5]Ian Mackillop,F.R.Leavis:A Life in Criticism,London:Penguin Books,1995.
[6]F.R.Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow.,London:Chatto&Windus,1962.
[7]C.P.Snow,The Two Cultures,with Indroduction by Stephen Collini,Cambridge vP,1998.
[8]Lionel Trilling,“Science,Literature and Culture:A Comment on the Leavis-Snow Controversy”,Commentary33,1962.
[9]Guy Ortolano,“F.R.Leavis,Science,and the Abiding Crisis of Modern Civilization”,History of Science 43,2005.
[10]John Henry Newman,The Idea of a University,ed.Harold Bloom,New York:Chelsea House,1983.
[11]Robert Whelan,“Introduction:Any Culture at all Would be Nice”,ed.Frank Furedi et al.,From Two Cultures to No Culture:C.P.Snow’s“Two Cultures”Lecture Fifty Years On,Civitas,2009.
[12]Leavis,“The Idea of a University”,in Education and the U-niversity:A Sketch for an English School,2nd ed.,Cambridge:Cambridge UP,1943.
[13]Francis Bacon,The New Organon and Related Writings,ed.,Fulton H.Anderson,New York:The Liberal Arts Press,1960.
[14]Stephen Collini,“Introduction”,The Two Cultures by C.P.Snow,Cambridge:Cambridge UP,1998.
[15]Matthew Arnold,Literature and Science,The Nineteenth Century XII,August 1882.
[16]张君劢、丁文江等著:《科学与人生观》,济南:山东人民出版社,1997年。
[17]梅贻琦:《大学一解》,《大学的意义》,苏州:古吴轩出版社,2016年。
(1)见C.P.Snow,The Two Cultures,with Introduction by Stephen Collini(Cambridge:Cambridge UP,1998)p.10,p.22。需要指出的是,发达国家向发展国家输出的不仅是技术,还有文化、价值观念、生活方式,在技术输出过程中,对欠发达国家原材料和劳动力的掠夺和剥削,并将其变成世界工厂是新帝国主义的运行逻辑。
(2)例如,Walter Allen,“A Discussion of C.P.Snow’s Views,”Encounter(August 1959):pp.67-68;A.C.B.Lovell,“AUnified Culture,”ibid.,p.68;and Bertrand Russell,“Snobbery,”ibid.,p.71,参见Guy Ortolano,“F.R.Leavis,Science,and the Abiding Crisis of Modern Civilization,”History of Science 43(2005):p.185。
(3)见Stephen Collini,“Introduction,”The Two Cultures by C.P.Snow,p.xxx。
(1)利维斯的名作《伟大的传统》开拓了小说批评的先河,因此对“何谓小说”自感有很大的发言权。斯诺的小说,人物扁平,构思肤浅,很难进入利维思的法眼,但斯诺却一直做着问鼎诺奖的美梦。参见GuyOrtolano,The Two Cultures Controversy,p.44,p.99,p.255。
(1)见F.R.Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow,p.13,p.14。被利维斯列入“英国小说的伟大传统”之列的小说家威廉·詹姆斯认为好的小说家善于“展示”而不是“讲述”。
(2)斯诺对传统文化的指责主要是,传统文化所统治的世界在经济和政治上都受益于19世纪工业革命所创造的财富,但它却不愿意教育年轻人,让他们理解并参与这场革命。“传统文化越是变得富有,便越远离工业革命,它为管理政府、印度帝国和延续文化本身而教育年轻人,却从不让他们理解或参与工业革命”。他认为有远见的人看到了培养更多科学人才、尤其是应用科学人才的必要性,但是传统文化不肯听取他们的建议,纯理论的科学家们也不大在意.总之,英国“学术界与工业革命没有任何关系”。见F.R.Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow,p.23。
(1)见F.R.Leavis,Two Cultures?The Significance of C.P.Snow,p.20。利维斯和劳伦斯等英国作家对于个体生存状态的强调和关注,与马克思的“每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的前提和条件”不谋而合。马克思的未来社会发展目标是“一个真正‘人性’的社会,即以‘人的全面发展’(克服工业社会的人‘的片面发展’)为标志的全新社会(恩格斯称之为‘人类史前的结束’和‘真正人的历史的开始’)”。参见甘阳《儒学与现代---兼论儒学与当代中国》,《古今中西之争》,北京:三联书店,2006年,第125页。
(2)见C.P.Snow,The Two Cultures,p.8。在尾注6中,斯诺将乔治·奥威尔的《1984》作为“最典型的希望未来不存在”的例子,这一点他并没看错,奥威尔对未来资本主义社会的基本态度是拒绝和绝望。参见C.P.Snow,The Two Cultures,p.101。
(1)参见Guy Ortolano,The Two Cultures Controversy,p.66;Guy Ortolano,“F.R.Leavis,Science,and the Abiding Crisis of Modern Civilization,”History of Science43(2005):p.161。
(2)F.R.Leavis,English Literature in Our Timeand the University.p.3,p.28,p.40,pp.65-65.
(3)The Richmond Lecture as a classic:Leavis to Parsons,25June1962,Chatto and Windus;Leavis to J.Schwartz,19 March1964,Harvard:Houghton,autograph fi le;Leavis to Parsons again,16January 1968,Chatto and Windus.Recited from Ortolano,“F.R.Leavis,Science,and the Abiding Crisis of Modern Civilization,”History of Science,Note 90.
(1)参见GuyOrtolano,The Two Cultures Controversy,pp.151-159。中国当下的社会科学与人文学之争可以放在此框架中予以考察。参见陈平原《当代中国人文学之“内外兼修”》,熊思东等编《通识教育与大学:中国的探索》,北京:科学出版社,2010年,第28-55页。
(2)参见GuyOrtolano,The Two Cultures Controversy,p.44,p.99,p.255。
(1)参见Thomas Huxley,“Science and Culture”,Science and Education:Essays(London,1893)pp.134-59,rpt.in Prose of the Victorian Period,ed.,William E.Buckler(Boston:Houghton Mifflin,1958)pp.526-537。
(1)对于“进步理论”的分析和批判对理解“两种文化之争”有至关重要的意义。参阅陈丹青《退步集》,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005年;黄梅《不肯进取》,沈阳:辽宁出版社,1996年;黄梅《推敲“自我”---小说在18世纪英国》,北京:三联书店,2003年;殷企平《推敲“进步”话语---新型小说在19世纪英国》,北京:商务印书馆,2009年。