在向王女士请教之前,我想先说,我对王女士多年来担当“历史义工”、为文革中惨死的“小人物”们伸张正义的作法十分敬佩,这个意思我在以前的文章中已有表达。这里具体涉及的,仅与卞校长之死一案有关。 如果没记错,我和王友琴是见过面的,但没有真正交流过。今天,我就借此机会向老校友请教吧。说实话,有些问题在我心里已经存了很久。这里会涉及到当年事件的一些重要细节,希望大家能够耐心地读下去。有个英谚说,the devil is in the details,或许可以翻译成“真相在细节中”。作为一个历史工作者,我不相信历史能够被“还原”,但我相信,经过努力,包括对细节的认真挖掘,可以尽量接近历史真实。 我向王友琴女士请教五个问题:
美国有一位叫柯文的中国史学者,在他的题为《历史三调》的书里,谈到历史书写时,有这么一句话:What comes after cannot influence what came before (Paul Cohen, History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth, NY: Columbia University, 1997, p.62/《历史三调:作为事件、经历和神话的义和团》,杜继东译,江苏人民出版社,2000),这句话的意思是,后面发生的事情不能倒过来影响已经发生了的事情。我在琢磨“宋要武传说”到底是怎么回事儿时,这句话给以我启迪。我们眼前看到的,是一个典型的“后面发生的事情”影响“已经发生了的事情”的例子。 其实,柯文说的这一历史书写中的倾向,古今中外都不罕见;在中国文革史的书写中,这个现象可以说比比皆是。不说别的,就说对林彪的研究,一个“九一三事件”,就抹煞了历史上的林彪和他的战功,明明会打仗也成了不会打仗。在中国二十世纪其它时期的历史研究中,这种例子也不乏见,使历史丧失了公信力。在这个意义上,女附中的例子不是孤立的个案,而有相当的代表性。 在《历史三调》中,柯文讨论了“神话”(myth)现象,认为这是人们和“过去”发生联系的一个重要方式,而且往往比严肃的历史书写更容易深入人心。我马上想到的一个例子,就是《三国演义》比《三国志》更为人们熟知。一提起曹操,就是《三国演义》里的大奸雄,而对历史人物曹操,既没有多少人了解,也没有多少人感兴趣。拿宋彬彬和曹操相比,极不恰当,但人们对“宋要武”的兴趣远远超过真实生活中的宋彬彬,却是实情。Myth(神话)所以能够流传久远,是因为它往往表达了人们心中受到压抑的诉求,甚至可以成为人们对现实批判的一种方式,因而有深厚的“群众基础”。有时myth甚至可以成为一些人坚守的“信仰”,触犯它会激起“众怒”。 我的感觉,经过多年“发酵”,“宋要武传说”已具备这个特点,质疑它会激起人们强烈的情绪反应。我署名“白芳”的文章在网上发表后,我对此已有领教。有意思的是,对“宋要武传说”不但在中国、在外国也有人“追捧”,哈里斯先生就是个例子;不但普通百姓,严肃的学者也无法“免俗”。就在最近,一位在国内颇受尊重的学者仍在一份很有影响的杂志上重复此说。柯文说,myth虽然偏离历史真实,但对了解人们的心理、精神和情绪有重要价值,具有心灵史上的意义。学者也是人,胸中也有块垒,有时也要借题发挥,而对某一说法是否有事实根据未必总那么在意。应该承认,“宋要武传说”是个“好故事”,对今天的中国颇有寓意。但好故事未必是好历史,事实上,好故事往往不是好历史。作为一个历史工作者,我别无选择,只能有一说一,有二说二。哈里斯先生说我是“宋彬彬和刘进的朋友”,我最初的反应是不值一驳,但又一想,觉得这背后的思维方式很成问题。对不同意见,不是就事实和观点进行辩论,而是对我和宋刘二人的关系进行主观臆测,这不够高明。至于要解释“宋要武传说”是如何形成的,为什么几十年来长盛不衰,值得认真写一篇论文,在这里无法展开。但说到底,与文革从未得到过彻底清算,与人们对中国现实的种种不满,应该有密切的关联。这就是为什么我对王友琴女士其实有“同情的理解”。
Thanks,Mr.高伐林. As a writer, you may write anything. I am a normal person, I can not allow or don't allow anything. If a person came to US just for economy reason , util now still defense Cultural Revolution, I will not ask him or her anything. But as 历史学教授 in US, is it a professional in US? I just ask Ms. 叶维丽 one question, did Mao and 宋 encourage students on 818 not so 彬彬 and later killed more teachers (as a historical view)? As communist party member and daughter of leaders, 宋彬彬 did everything good in 1966? We may forgive her (since she may not directly beat teacher by herself), I want to 宋彬彬 a question, did she still felt she, her father, and her father's top boss were right in 1966 and later? In 1966, only the students who directly killed 卞校长 did bad things, they were not under the leadership of Mao? Who called Cultural Revolution? The students?
Sorry post again, I already posted two similar comments at 高伐林 Blog. But now I felt this Blog is right place. 叶维丽教授 knew more than us and is a history scholar. I thought Ms.宋彬彬 did not directly beat any teacher in 1966, I hope she did not directly do so bad things. I just want to ask 叶维丽教授, as a student of 1966, did you feel sorry to 卞仲耘 (I definitely know you did not beat her)? Should 宋彬彬 feel sorry to her teacher when honoring return to mother school? Did Mao and 宋彬彬 encourage students not so 彬彬 on 818, and later cause more teachers dead? Now you and 宋 both are US, why just clear yourselves (I believe both of you did not directly beat teacher), but as a daughter of Communist leader, why can not say sorry for herself, for her father, for her father's top boss say sorry to her teachers? I hope you and 宋彬彬 to post your feeling after we believe you did not directly beat your 宋彬彬teachers. I hope 高伐林 transfer my comments to 叶维丽 and