근대 지식의 두 얼굴: 저널리즘과 아카데미즘

Abstract

With regard to the production of knowledge, the key source of modern knowledge lies in academism and journalism. This knowledge enjoys a dominant status over different forms of knowledge and information due to the prominence and influence of the institutions it stems from. These two production modes of knowledge pursue different forms of knowledge, and at the same time, shape a complementary relationship with one another. As the two also share common grounds, their boundaries are often blurred. While these two mode of knowledge production involve two distinct occupations—scholars versus journalists—the very person who produces knowledge may go through the tasks required in both. On the other hand, these two production modes are also in competition with one another, as they compete to become the hegemon regarding the ideology and direction of the time. In china in early twentieth century, New academism set up a cooperative system with Journalism against traditional scholarship that the latter played a leading role. Journalism demonstrated that traditional academism was something that needed to be overcome and replaced. Then, what would replace traditional academism was a wide range of knowledge that included information produced by rapidly changing theories and scientific research rising from home and abroad. Journalism continued to spearhead the dissemination of new knowledge until the 1920s. This was primarily due to the lack of a new form of academism that could replace the old; however, it also had much to do with the emphasis on new knowledge as a way of understanding and perceiving the world and society as a whole, rather than the production of knowledge within the systematic rules of academia. It was around 1915 that the leading role of journalism in China’s modern academism became a target of fierce criticism which continued through 1920 in the form of ideological and theoretical debate. In 1914, Hongjun Ren (任鴻雋), who was then a student at Cornell University, published his essay “The Establishment of an Academia (學界).” What was unusual in his writing was not just the use of the words “academia” or “an academic world.” It was the implied fact that China had lacked one. Subsequently, Hu’s “problems and isms” and the Rearrangement of Traditional Writings in the New culture movement period were topics raised by scholars who took park in the modern production of knowledge, namely at universities and through newspapers and magazines, leading the academic and social movement. These were otherwise considered scholars of the reform movement prior to the establishment of modern academism. Knowledge production was led more by journalism than by universities, and journalism contributed significantly to providing a social foundation for the formation of academism in universities. However, around 1920, education and academic systems at universities were properly developed, and as ideological specializations began even within the realm of journalism, a new type of relationship began to form between journalism and academism as well. While ideological battles, including the aforementioned two problems as well as “Dispute of Xuanxue,” arose as a result of contention between different knowledge dimensions between academism and journalism, at the core of the problem is tension and mutual-criticism between the two spheres of knowledge. This, unlike the period when the production of modern knowledge was led by journalism, is a phenomenon resulting from academism and journalism each producing knowledge of different dimensions, as academism began to gain structure. In this way, with the split between theoretical and critical/realistic knowledge, and between knowledge that focuses each on problem-solving and future-planning, the structure of modern knowledge production was formed. At the same time, it was also a process of exposing the limits and problems of the two spheres of knowledge.