20世纪90年代以来，当代中国大陆人文社会科学学科领域，出现了一次影响深远的学术转向。至今，整个学界，包括高等院校、科研机构，所谓“学术”已经逐步获得了话语霸权。而所谓“学者”则通过这种话语霸权的获得，逐步争取到学术资源，并且掌握了学术权力。情况正如当代中国大陆著名思想家李泽厚所描述的：“思想家淡出，学问家凸显。”在某种意义上，这一历史运动并不亚于20世纪80年代思想解放（启蒙）运动。只是那场思想解放（启蒙）更加广泛一些，影响到了人民大众，尤其知识分子，而这次学术转向则只是影响到了学界。但其深刻、持久，则有过之而无不及。何况，在某种意义上，学术转向标志着思想解放（启蒙）的历史终结。本文的任务是以当代中国大陆哲学学科领域为考察对象，认识和评估这一转向的因果、得失，以期大家对于当代中国大陆哲学乃至整个人文学术思想的基本面貌和基本走向有所领略。
一
当代中国大陆哲学由于马克思主义哲学的支配地位和决定作用，建国以来相当一段历史时期是作为意识形态存在、发展的。早在延安时期，中共就将文艺、学术作为“齿轮和螺丝钉”安装到了整个革命战争机器之中；建国以后，通过对于广大人民群众的思想教育，尤其对于知识分子的思想改造（所谓“洗脑”运动）更将文艺、学术作为“齿轮和螺丝钉”安装到了整个国家机器之中。即使在当时中共所提出的“双百”方针，即“百花齐放、百家争鸣”的方针（“百花齐放”是就艺术而言，“百家争鸣”是就学术而言）中，仍然是以“辨别香花和毒草”和“判断我们的言论和行动的是非”为前提和基础的。在毛泽东时代，哲学的学习、教学和研究工作，以及众多的批判和争论，如对条件论或唯条件论的批判、对生产力论或唯生产力论的批判，如所谓“三大哲学争论”：20世纪50年代中期关于过渡时期经济基础与上层建筑问题的争论（“单一论”与“综合论”的争论）、50年代末60年代初关于“思维与存在的同一性”问题的争论、60年代中期“一分为二”与“合二而一”的争论，都是以当时政治为背景，归根结底是意识形态性质的所谓“学术”争论。
甚至到邓小平时代，意识形态仍然占据主流。70年代末期关于真理标准问题的讨论，确立了实践标准，掀起了第一次思想解放运动，从而为终结毛泽东“无产阶级专政下继续革命”理论和“无产阶级文化大革命”实践，转向邓小平“建设有中国特色社会主义”理论和实践开辟了道路；直到90年代初期、中期，进一步确立了生产力标准，掀起了第二、三次思想解放运动，推动了经济体制从计划经济到市场经济，所有制从国有到民有的历史转型。80年代中期关于人道主义和异化问题的讨论，知识分子在思想启蒙旗号下，宣扬人性、人道，反对异化。对于这样一种倾向，中共以“清除精神污染”来应答，将“反资产阶级自由化”与“扫黄”并列。90年代中期关于人文精神问题的讨论，是知识分子对于市场经济与人文精神之间的关系的思考。这些仍然具有意识形态倾向。
二
20世纪90年代以来（“六四”以后），当代中国大陆人文社会科学出现了一次影响深远的学术转向。这次学术转向是由一场关于学术规范问题的争论引起的。邓正来所谓“中国社会科学自主性”，其实就是要求中国社会科学从依附于意识形态之中独立出来。这种独立并不像思想解放（启蒙）样提出与旧意识形态相反的某种新意识形态，而是拒斥任何一种意识形态，这里的关键是确立学术规范，实现学术自主。朱学勤对于“思想史上的失踪者”的怀旧情绪，揭示了近代知识体制，包括大学的两面性：有利于知识传授，而有害于个性成长；有利于学术积累，而有害于思想创新。“民间思想”展示了被近代学术体制边缘化的思想的意义和价值。刘小枫倡导“国家权力与社会权利之间的个体学术”，揭露了“现代学问体系”的双重性，以及“对现代学问体系的地缘政治造反”：不仅仅是学术自主，不仅仅是民间思想，而是个体学术才是最基本的问题。
在争论中，上述三种观点大致代表了关于学术规范讨论的三种基本倾向：邓正来强调学术规范是社会科学自主性的保证；朱学勤强调民间思想的意义；刘小枫强调国家权力与社会权利之间的个体学术的价值。此后，强调学术规范逐渐成为中国大陆学界主流。学术规范好比一座“围城”，通过各种显型和隐型的学术准入制度，在意识形态氛围中建立了一个学术的“特区”。在这个学术“特区”里，学者宣称：不做第一流的思想家，只做第二流的学问家。学者与官方仿佛达成了一份契约，实现了一次交换：学者放弃了思想的权利，获得了学术的权力；而官方则让渡了学术的资源，保证了思想的权威。在当代中国大陆学术体制亦即学术资源配置中，纯粹学术研究获得了与意识形态“学术”研究大致相当的位置。这样就形成了一种体制内学术，同时将民间思想、个体学术拒斥于体制外。这样，20世纪80年代思想解放（启蒙）氛围就消解了，取而代之的是学术转向，绝大多数知识分子从广场回到了书斋，剩下极少数、极个别知识分子不过掀起几次“茶杯中的风暴”而已（如所谓新自由主义、新左派和新保守主义等）。近几年来，中国大陆官方资本已经大批量、大规模转移到了学界。而民间资本、个人资本则尚未成熟到了这个地步。因而，“思想家淡出，学问家凸显”这样一种状况，亦即体制外思想和体制内学术的基本格局预计还将持续下去。
三
按照中国大陆学科划分，哲学作为一级学科，被划分为8个二级学科：马克思主义哲学、中国哲学、外国哲学、逻辑学、伦理学、美学、宗教学、科学技术哲学。由于各个学科所受到的意识形态影响不一，在学术转向中表现也就不一：有先有后，有显有微。其中的断裂带是从现行哲学教科书研究范式（如唯物主义和唯心主义、辩证法和形而上学的斗争、儒法斗争、历史主义、阶级分析、自然辩证法和辩证逻辑等研究范式）中解放出来。这里需要区分的有三种情况：一是在意识形态争论中所表现出来的思想解放趋向（20世纪80年代）；二是学术转向（90年代）；三是在学术争论中所表现出来的学术转向朝着纵深方向推进（21世纪10年代）。
大致说来，迄今为止，美学、伦理学、马克思主义哲学先后发生了显著的学术转向，而在中国哲学、外国哲学、逻辑学、科学技术哲学、宗教学中，学术转向则比较微弱。各种学术转向或表现为学术传统（如翻译、考证、梳理和解释学传统等）恢复；或表现为与世界（国际）学术潮流（如海外新儒家和国外汉学的影响、欧陆现象学和英美分析哲学的影响，如伦理学朝着政治哲学、宗教哲学两个方向发展，美学从艺术史研究到艺术哲学研究，逻辑学从传统逻辑研究到数理逻辑研究，科学技术哲学从科学史研究到科学哲学研究）相接轨；大多由问题主导转向为学理主导，文本学、文献学研究成为主流，尤其在马克思主义哲学中出现了马克思哲学解释学乃至马克思学研究。
总之，当代中国大陆哲学的学术转向意味着当代中国大陆哲学学术自主性的实现。所谓学术自主性，是现代性的表征。当年，韦伯提出了“世界的祛魅化”的问题。价值中立和意义悬置的学术研究，是一种去意识形态化（或“祛魅化”）的表现。在这种纯粹学术中，原本为问题而创造的学理，反而获得了自己独立的意义和价值。诚然，在学术规范旗号下，经验主义的朴素学术被边缘化，而教条主义的烦琐学术被中心化。尽管后现代思潮正在中国大陆蔓延，但像格里芬的“科学的返魅”一样的后现代学术至今却没有丝毫的崭露。或许，民间思想、个体学术是扬弃学术异化的必由之路？这是其一。其二，当代中国大陆哲学的学术转向意味着当代中国大陆哲学学者职业化身份转型的实现。从依附于国家权力的御用知识分子和依赖于社会权力的公共知识分子中，分化出一批学院知识分子（所谓学院派、专家型学者）。他们不是为政治而学术，而是为学术而学术。在自己这里，他们努力掌握某种学术“绝活”；而在别人那里，他们则努力寻找某种学术“硬伤”。他们正是这样以学术为生存技艺、谋生手段。其三，学者借助学术规范获得了某种合法性，从而合法地占有学术资源，合法地行使学术权力。近几年来，中国大陆官方学术资源投入之多，产出之少，史无前例。这是一场“学术大跃进”，诸如高指标、瞎指挥、浮夸风之类“大跃进”现象已经屡见不鲜，结果是学术的虚假“繁荣”、真正“腐败”。然而，对于官方来说，这是一次“和平赎买”，虽然对于学术进步的意义有待争议，但对于政治稳定的价值却无可置疑。对于学者来说，这是一次“学术大革命”，正是学术利益和权力的重新分配。学者通过掌握学术资源，从而掌握学术权力。这是最近十年以来中国大陆高等院校、学术机构最重要和最根本的历史变革。变革所向何方？可以拭目以待！
（2008年7月30日-8月5日，作者在韩国首尔大学参加第22届世界哲学大会，大会的主题是“反思当今的哲学”[Rethinking Philosophy Today]。这是作者8月3日上午英文演讲的中文稿件）
Ideology Fading Out, Scholarship Highlighting
-- Academic Turn of Philosophy in Mainland China Today
Guangyun Cheng & Nianxi Xia
Department of Philosophy Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
Abstract: In Mainland China, due to dominant status and decisive function of Marxism philosophy, philosophy has developed as the state ideology since the foundation of People’s Republic of China in 1949. However, since the 1990s the humanities and social sciences have been experiencing an obvious academic turn in Mainland China. The event first set in with a debate on academic norms and with the debate the academic norms have gradually become the mainstream in Mainland China. In accordance with the division of disciplines in Mainland China, philosophy as the first-level discipline is subdivided into eight second-level disciplines: Marxist philosophy, Chinese philosophy, foreign philosophy, logic, ethics, aesthetics, religion, and philosophy of science and technology. Roughly speaking, aesthetics, ethics and Marxist philosophy have a remarkable turn, while others just have a weak one. The turn signifies the achievement of the academic autonomy of philosophy in China; and the turn also means that philosophy scholars have realized their transition to professional status.
Since the 1990s the humanities and social sciences have been experiencing a far-reaching academic turn in Mainland China. So far, in the whole academia, including universities and research institutions, the so-called “scholarship” has gradually gained the discourse hegemony; and the so-called "scholars" have gradually obtained academic resources and academic power by the very hegemony. The situation is just like what Li Zehou, a famous thinker in contemporary Mainland China, described: “the thinkers are fading out, while the scholars are highlighting.” In some sense, the historical movement is not inferior to the movement of ideological liberation or enlightenment in 1980s.Just the latter was more widespread, which influenced the masses, especially intellectuals; while the academic turn only influences the academics, but it has been lasting for a longer time, and one may say it has more significance. Moreover, in some sense, academic turn marks the historical end of the movement of ideological liberation. In order to let more people know more about philosophy and even the humanities and social sciences in contemporary Mainland China, we shall reveal the causes and effects of the turn, estimate its gains and losses.
1. In mainland China, due to dominant status and decisive function of Marxist philosophy, Philosophy has developed as the state ideology since the foundation of People’s Republic of China in 1949. In the Yanan time (1935-1948), the Communist Party of China (CPC) already treated the revolutionary war as a machine and literature and art as its “gear and screw bolt”. After the foundation of the PRC, CPC carried out ideological education among the broad masses, especially ideological reform among the intellectuals, i.e. so-called "brainwashing" campaign, CPC further treated literature and art as gears and screw bolts of the state machine. Even CPC’s Double Hundred Campaign, abbreviated for “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend,” and the former was for literature and art while the latter was for academia, was still based on ideology, because people were asked to “distinguish fragrant flowers from poisonous herbs” and “to judge between the right and the wrong among opinions and actions”. In the Mao Era, philosophy learning, teaching, research, a great deal of criticism such as the criticism of the theory of productive forces, that of the theory of conditions, and most debates all had politics as their background. There took place the “three major philosophy debates”: (1) the debate between “the theory on single economic basis” and “the theory on multiple economic basis” in the mid-1950s of 20th century; (2) the debate about “the identity of thought and existence” around the end of 1950s and the beginning of 1960s; and (3) the debate between “dividing one into two” and “combining two into one” in the mid-1960s. Strictly speaking, they all were called "academic" debates with the nature of ideology.
Even in Deng Xiaoping Era, the state ideology still occupied the mainstream. The debate on the criterion for testing truth in the end of the 1970s established that practice would be the sole criterion, and raised the first ideological liberation movement, thus opened the way for the theory and practice on "building socialism with Chinese characteristics" after ending the theory of "continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat" and the practice of “the proletarian cultural revolution”; the criterion productivity had not been established until the early 1990s, while there took place the second and third ideological liberation movements, which promoted the historical transition from the planned economy system to the market one and from the state ownership to people one. During the debate on humanitarianism and alienation in the mid-1980s, intellectual advocated human nature, humanity, opposed alienation under the enlightenment-thinking banner. CPC put forward the slogans “to clean up the spiritual pollution” and “anti-bourgeois liberalization” as the response to the debate. The discussion on humanistic spirit in the mid-1990s was about the relationship between the market economy and the humanistic spirit, which still had ideological tendency.
2. Since the 1990s the humanities and social sciences have been experiencing an obvious academic turn in Mainland China. The event first set in with a debate on academic norms. There were three basic viewpoints in discussion。Deng Zhenglai advocated that academic norms would be the guarantee of the autonomy of social sciences in his article entitled “About the Autonomy of Social Sciences in China”. What he meant by "the autonomy of social sciences in China" was just to claim that the social science in China should be independent of ideology. The independence is to refuse any ideology, not to advance a new one. The key here is to establish the academic norms and bring about the academic autonomy. Zhu Xueqin held that we should stick to folk thought in his article entitled “The Missing Persons in The History of Thinking”. His nostalgic mood revealed the modern knowledge institution including university had dual characters: being useful to the transmission of knowledge while harmful to the growth of personality; being useful to academic accumulation while harmful to the innovative thinking. “The folk thought” demonstrates the significance and the value of those thought marginalized by the modern academic institutions. Liu Xiaofeng maintained that we should choose academism between state power and social rights according to the article entitled “Individual Academism between State Power and Social Rights”. He declared that "modern scholarship system" had its own disharmony elements, and we should rebel against the geopolitics of modern academic system. In his opinion, the most basic academic problem is not academic autonomy, not folk thought, but individual academic.
These three viewpoints represent three basic trends on academic norms. With these debates the academic norms have gradually become the mainstream in Mainland China. Academic norm is like a “besieged city”, and an academic "special zone" is built in the ideological atmosphere through a variety of admittance systems. In this zone the scholars declare that they would rather be second-class scholars than first-class ideologues. The scholars and the government seem to reach a contract and take an exchange: the scholars give up the rights of thinking in order to obtain academic power; while the official transfers academic resources in order to ensure the ideological authority. Now the pure academic research has obtained the same position as the ideological "academic" research with respect to the academic institutions or academic resources. A kind of scholarship within the system is being created, and the folk thoughts and individual scholarship are repelled outside the system. Thus the atmosphere of ideological liberation in 1980s has been dispelled and replaced by the academic turn. Most intellectuals return to their studies from the square, only few of them are still there, but what they can do just raise some “storms in teacup”. In recent years, the official capital in Mainland China already has been transferred to the academia in batch. But the same thing has not happened to civil capital and individual capital. It means that the situation “ideologues fading out while scholars highlighting” would continue.
3. In accordance with the division of disciplines in Mainland China, philosophy as the first level discipline is subdivided into eight second level disciplines: Marxist philosophy, Chinese philosophy, foreign philosophy, logic, ethics, aesthetics, religion, and philosophy of science and technology. Since the ideology has influenced them differently, they have different manifestations of the turn. The fault zone is to liberate from the current philosophy- textbooks research paradigm, for instance, the struggle between materialism and idealism, between dialectics and metaphysics, between Confucianism and Legalism, historicism, class analysis, natural diagnostic method and dialectical logic. Here there are three different situations: (1) the trend of ideological liberation appeared in the ideological debates in the 1980s; (2) the academic turn in the 1990s; (3) the further development of the turn in the new century. Roughly speaking, aesthetics, ethics and Marxism philosophy have a remarkable turn, while others just have a weak one.
Some of the academic turns are to resume the academic traditions such as translation, philology and hermeneutics, while others are to be in line with the international academic trend. For instance, ethics is developing in two directions: political-philosophy ethics and religion- philosophy ethics; aesthetics is treating the philosophy of art as research center instead of the history of art. And most of them are experiencing the turn from the domination of questions to the domination of scientific theories. Philology research has become the mainstream, especially there emerge the hermeneutics of Marxist philosophy and even Marx studies.
4. In short, the academic turn of philosophy in Mainland China signifies the achievement of the academic autonomy of philosophy in China. The so-called academic autonomy is the representative of modernity. We know that disenchantment means freeing from illusion or false belief according to Max Weber, so value-neutral non-partisan academic research being free from ideology is manifestation of the disenchantment. In this pure scholarship the scientific theory originally created for questions has got its own independent meaning and value. Indeed, under the banner of academic norms, the simple scholarship of empiricism is being marginalized while the scholasticism of dogmatism is being centralized. Though post-modern trend is spreading in China, the post scholarship such as Griffin’s “Re-enchantment of Science" does not take place at all. Perhaps folk thought and individual scholarship are the only way to academic alienation.
The academic turn also means that philosophy scholars have realized their transition to professional status. Genuine academic intellectuals have split up from those imperial intellectuals attached to the state power and those public ones to social power. They don’t do research for politics, but for scholarship. They strive to master some academic "unique skills"，and try to find out some simple mistaken made by others. They are taking scholarship as their living skills.
Scholars have obtained their legitimate position with the help of the establishment of academic norms, and they are legitimately entitled to dispose their academic resources and to exercise their academic rights. In recent years, the academic resources provided by the government are so huge while the output is so small without precedent in the history. This is an "academic Great Leap Forward", and no one feel strange about the phenomena such as high targets, command without any ground, grandiosity. We have to say this is the false "prosperity" of scholarship, the real "corruption". However, this is a peaceful redemption to the official, and it would be very useful for the political stability, although it is still questionable whether it is helpful for academic progress. As for the scholars, this is an “Academic Great Revolution” with redistribution of academic benefit and power, and the scholars master academic power by controlling academic resources.
Above of all, it should be said without hesitation that this turn has been one of the most remarkable and fundamental historical reforms made in recent decades. Where will the reform go forward? Let’s wait and see!
Revised by Cha In-suk
