论文部分内容阅读
1997年9月4日,《羊城晚报·南方文评》发表青年学者朱健国的文章《余秋雨“桥头堡论质疑”》。文章指出,余秋雨近几年频频到深圳去指导文化,每次虽然匆匆小住两天,但总有语惊四座的观点。1995年的指导主题是:“深圳是中国文化的桥头堡”,1996年的指导主题是“深圳有条件建立深圳学派”,1997年的指导主题是“深圳最有资格做总结20世纪文化的事—掌握20世纪中国文化的结算权”。对于余秋雨这些“空谷足音”式的观点,朱健国在文章中逐条提出质疑。一是关于“深圳是中国文化的桥头堡”,余秋雨在论证这一观点时引用亨廷顿《文明的冲突》中的一些观点,认为
September 4, 1997, “Yangcheng Evening News · Southern Culture Review” published an article for young scholars Zhu Jianguo “Yu Qiuyu” bridgehead on the question. The article pointed out that Yu Qiuyu frequently went to Shenzhen in recent years to guide the culture, although each hurried for two days, but there are always four views. The guiding theme of 1995 was: “Shenzhen is a bridgehead for Chinese culture.” In 1996, the guiding theme was “Shenzhen has the conditions to establish a Shenzhen school.” The guiding theme of 1997 was “Shenzhen is best qualified to summarize the 20th century culture - Grasp the right of settlement of Chinese culture in the 20th century. ” For Yu Qiuyu these “empty valley footnote” style point of view, Zhu Jianguo questioned one by one in the article. One is about “Shenzhen is the bridgehead of Chinese culture,” and Yu Qiuyu quoted some of Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” as arguing this point of view, believing