現(xiàn)代性更難

∷林巍 文／譯

原 文

[1] 周?chē)耐麄內(nèi)?guó)外旅游，回來(lái)后常聽(tīng)他們講，美國(guó)、歐洲的那些城市也沒(méi)什么，馬路、建筑還不如我們的好呢，或曰還不如我們現(xiàn)代化。我想，那大概是因?yàn)樗麄兇蠖肌跋萝?chē)拍照、上車(chē)睡覺(jué)”，看到更多的是“現(xiàn)代化”而非“現(xiàn)代性”。

[2] 分析起來(lái)，“現(xiàn)代”的含義，主要包括兩個(gè)方面，即現(xiàn)代化和現(xiàn)代性?，F(xiàn)代化，主要是從經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)層面上來(lái)談?wù)搯?wèn)題，如社會(huì)從農(nóng)業(yè)文明進(jìn)入工業(yè)文明過(guò)程中所體現(xiàn)的生產(chǎn)方式轉(zhuǎn)型、經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)、社會(huì)發(fā)展、教育普及、知識(shí)提高等方面的根本變化；而現(xiàn)代性，則主要在哲學(xué)層面、從理性高度審視真正現(xiàn)代化社會(huì)的含義，從思想觀(guān)念與行為方式上把握現(xiàn)代化社會(huì)的屬性、意識(shí)和精神。簡(jiǎn)言之，前者側(cè)重于生產(chǎn)和物質(zhì)，后者側(cè)重于制度和精神；所以，二者是不同性質(zhì)的概念。一個(gè)社會(huì)，可能具有了某種程度的現(xiàn)代化，但不一定必然具有現(xiàn)代性。

[3] 現(xiàn)代化不易，現(xiàn)代性則更難。以此觀(guān)點(diǎn)回顧中國(guó)近代史，自19世紀(jì)60年代以來(lái)，主要經(jīng)歷了三次重大社會(huì)變革：第一次是洋務(wù)運(yùn)動(dòng)，約30年，以甲午戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)和《馬關(guān)條約》為標(biāo)志而失??；第二次是戊戌變法，到20世紀(jì)20年代，約30年，亦未成功；第三次便是上世紀(jì)80年代初開(kāi)始的改革開(kāi)放，至今30余年，在經(jīng)濟(jì)層面上可謂成功。然而，這三次有一共同特點(diǎn)，即都以現(xiàn)代化壓過(guò)了現(xiàn)代性。

[4] 現(xiàn)代性的基本特征是法治社會(huì)和公民意識(shí)。傳統(tǒng)社會(huì)的統(tǒng)治，靠的是神圣信仰、禮俗、特權(quán)、身份、宗法、血緣等，中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)社會(huì)的“君君、臣臣、父父、子子”便最為典型；而現(xiàn)代社會(huì)是靠理性設(shè)計(jì)出來(lái)的法律來(lái)維持統(tǒng)治，其基本特征是法制化，廢除特權(quán)，強(qiáng)調(diào)人的獨(dú)立性、平等性、自覺(jué)性和能動(dòng)性。

[5] 既然現(xiàn)代性是一種社會(huì)理念和精神財(cái)富，就須通過(guò)一定社會(huì)模式和制度安排得以實(shí)現(xiàn)和彰顯。現(xiàn)代性不是自發(fā)形成的，而是一種自覺(jué)的社會(huì)功能；在制度與人性的互動(dòng)中，不斷測(cè)試、概括、整合和提升，進(jìn)而滲透在人們的日常生活方式中。

[6] 嚴(yán)格講，現(xiàn)代性不是看出來(lái)的，而是體悟出來(lái)的；要在那里切切實(shí)實(shí)地生活、經(jīng)歷一段，才會(huì)感到人性在不同制度框架下所進(jìn)化的文明程度。

譯 文

[1] Quite often, I hear my countrymen speak lightly about the roads or buildings in the United States or Europe after their overseas trips; it seems that ours are much more modern.I reckon they were probably on a tour of “taking photos off the bus while flipping through others” and they have been so obsessed with “modernization” rather than “modernity”.

[2] By definition, the so-called “modern” consists of two aspects—modernization and modernity. Modernization is generally viewed in China from economic and social aspects,such as fundamental alters of production modes, economic growth, social development, the spread of education and knowledge during the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one. Modernity, on the other hand, typically refers to rational evaluation of the nature, ideas, spirit and behavioral patterns of fully modernized societies at a philosophical level. Surely, the two are different concepts in different phases of the developmental process, with the former accentuating production and materials and the later stressing the system and spirit. A society may have achieved a certain degree of modernization, but may not be completely modern.

[3] It is not easy to achieve modernization, and even more so modernity. Reviewing modern Chinese history from this point of view, there have been three major modernizing social reforms: the Westernization Movement, which lasted about 30 years, failed miserably with the Sino-Japanese War of 1894—1895 (launched by Japanese imperialists to annex Korea and invade China)and the Treaty of Shimonoseki; a capitalist enlightenment from the Hundred Days Reform (1898) to the 1920s,also about 30 years, ended unsuccessfully; and the most recent “reform and openness” initiated by Deng Xiaoping from the 1980s up to now, has over the past 30 years or so been successful economically. These reforms,nevertheless, have one thing in common: “modernity”was overwhelmed by “modernization”.

[4] Modernity is chiefly characterized by rule of law and civic awareness. Unlike traditional societies which were ruled by holy beliefs, etiquette, custom, and patriarchal kinship typified by the Chinese hierarchical structure of family and social relations, modern societies are governed by laws and regulations designed out of rationality. The core values of a modern society are therefore legislation, equal rights,inde pendence, equality, consciousness and motivation of individuals.

[5] As an idea and spiritual treasure, modernity did not happen spontaneously but consciously in a functional social setting; it is through interactions between systems and humanity that modernity evolves, synchronizes and crystallizes, gradually merging into people’s daily life.

[6] Strictly speaking, modernity is not visibly sensed but has to be felt, experienced and reasoned. Different aspects of human nature, as well as its civilization, may be better revealed and compared when framed in certain environments.

譯 注

在[1]中，“下車(chē)拍照、上車(chē)睡覺(jué)”不一定譯得那么“實(shí)”，而是譯出其核心含義，即將旅游過(guò)程簡(jiǎn)化為只重拍照而忽略其他。

在[2]中，將“現(xiàn)代”具體劃分：“分析起來(lái)，‘現(xiàn)代’的含義，主要包括兩個(gè)方面，即現(xiàn)代化和現(xiàn)代性”，此處的“分析”未必是by analysis，而是就其性質(zhì)、定義而言的，故以 by definition 更宜；“而現(xiàn)代性，則主要在哲學(xué)層面、從理性高度審視真正現(xiàn)代化社會(huì)的含義”，其中的“哲學(xué)層面”、“理性高度”在譯文中不一定仍然并列，而可分開(kāi)處理，即由rational evaluation of 和 at a philosophical level構(gòu)成；“真正現(xiàn)代化社會(huì)”亦非為real modernized society，而可從內(nèi)涵上理解為fully modernized societies；“簡(jiǎn)言之，前者側(cè)重于生產(chǎn)和物質(zhì)，后者側(cè)重于制度和精神”，“簡(jiǎn)言之”未用通常的 in short, concisely, in sum, in conclusion 等，而是surely，以示強(qiáng)調(diào)；而對(duì)于“前者”、“后者”的處理，則不妨稍加擴(kuò)展，添入補(bǔ)充成分the two are different concepts in different phases of the developmental process, with the former... and the later...；至于最后一句“一個(gè)社會(huì)，可能具有了某種程度的現(xiàn)代化，但不一定必然具有現(xiàn)代性”，則又涉及到在更深層次上理解“現(xiàn)代性”的問(wèn)題，然而此處并未用modernity，而是...completely modern，意為certain degree of modernity，足見(jiàn)可變通的尺度。

然而，對(duì)于諸如modernity一類(lèi)含義豐富而模糊的詞匯及其相關(guān)篇章的翻譯，有時(shí)要采取整體貫通的策略，以求得實(shí)效。對(duì)此，翻譯家嚴(yán)復(fù)早有論述：“此在譯者將全文神理，融會(huì)于心，則下筆抒詞，自然互備。至原文詞理本深，難于共喻，則當(dāng)前后引襯，以顯其意。凡此經(jīng)營(yíng)，皆以為達(dá)，為達(dá)即所以為信也?！保ㄓ嵴?003：32）這里的主旨是“全文神理，融會(huì)于心”（have a thorough understanding and digested original text in mind beforehand）。

在[6]中，“感到人性在不同制度框架下所進(jìn)化的文明程度”，其中的“感到”含義頗豐，不是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的feel所能了結(jié)，而是一種在比較中的自覺(jué)意識(shí)，故用了reveal and compare兩個(gè)動(dòng)詞，且用了被動(dòng)語(yǔ)態(tài)，而“在……制度框架下”則簡(jiǎn)化為framed in...environments。

在學(xué)術(shù)界，有學(xué)者認(rèn)為，中國(guó)直至近現(xiàn)代，只有“思想”而沒(méi)有“哲學(xué)”（王國(guó)維，1905），只有語(yǔ)言文學(xué)而沒(méi)有文法（馬建忠，1894），中國(guó)的翻譯長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)也只有“文論”而沒(méi)有“理論”，因而與西方的現(xiàn)代翻譯學(xué)不在一個(gè)層面上。其實(shí)，通過(guò)上文圍繞“現(xiàn)代化”和“現(xiàn)代性”的理解與翻譯，就具體翻譯中所采用的“變通”策略而言，中西方對(duì)此的分析和探索，有著許多交叉、重疊和相通之處。