來自邊緣的突圍：《新社會》同人與北京基督教青年會的交流互動及其歷史意義（1917-1921）

Abstract

本文以1919年創刊的《新社會》旬刊及其五名核心同人──瞿秋白、耿濟之、鄭振鐸、瞿世英、許地山──為研究對象，探討這群原先處於北京學生界「邊緣」位置的青年知識分子，如何在1917年至1921年間，藉由與北京基督教青年會（The Peking Young Men’s Association）的深度交流互動，透過策略性的資本積累與組織運作，逐步完成由「邊緣」向場域「中心」的突圍，最終以新式知識分子之姿安身立命。

承繼羅志田關於「邊緣知識分子」的分析架構，並引入布赫迪厄（Pierre Bourdieu）的場域理論與勒非弗爾（André Lefevere）的贊助者理論，本文將五四前後的知識界視為一個持續變動、高度競爭的文化場域。在此理論視野下，知識分子身分的建構可以理解為資本積累、借用與轉換的動態過程。藉由廣泛運用《新社會》旬刊、同人書信與回憶錄、北京基督教青年會檔案、燕京大學相關文獻，以及同時期報刊等一手史料，本文透過文本與史料的交叉比對，重建《新社會》同人於具體歷史情境中的實際行動與策略選擇。

本文首先指出，《新社會》五名核心同人於1917年前後紛紛落腳北京東城，因地緣上的鄰近與北京基督教青年會建立聯繫。青年會圖書館所藏的俄國文藝作品與北美社會學書籍，在當時的北京，可謂甚具稀缺性的知識資源。這不僅開啟了《新社會》同人與北京青年會互動的契機，因此成為了這群青年積累文化資本的關鍵基礎。而青年會美籍幹事步濟時（John Stewart Burgess）對於北京城「西城—中心」與「東城—邊緣」的階序化認知，則為我們揭示了《新社會》同人在北京學生界中的「邊緣」處境。

其次，本文深入考察北京社會實進會對於《新社會》同人的影響。社會實進會的創立，源於青年會體系以「社會服務」為核心的宣教策略，而步濟時為該會所引入的「社會調查」方法，更成為《新社會》同人日後介入社會改造論述的重要基礎。五四學運期間，隨著北大、高師等原先作為學運領袖的「中心」院校屢遭鎮壓，與北京青年會關係密切的燕京大學則因其美國教會背景成為學運的避風港，使原居「邊緣」的《新社會》同人得以持續參與運動、積累社會資本。

在刊物經營層面，本文揭示《新社會》如何透過「雙重決裂」策略在五四新刊的激烈競爭中建立區隔（distinction）。《新社會》先以提倡源自青年會體系的「社會服務」與「社會調查」與其餘「空談改造」的五四新刊展開第一重決裂（rupture），繼而以擬仿《新青年》的體裁、選題躋身於新文化場域之中。然而，在第七號改版後，《新社會》轉而對《新青年》展開第二重決裂，大量譯介當時在中國尚屬稀缺的北美社會學理論，以此打造獨特的區隔優勢。這些理論資源主要來自步濟時及燕京大學社會學系的課程設計，而負責相關內容供稿的鄭振鐸、瞿世英、許地山三人，亦因此在刊物內部逐步掌握話語權。此一策略的成功，具體體現於刊物銷路的擴大，以及大批美商、中美合資企業的商業廣告投放，使《新社會》成功實現由依賴青年會單一贊助者到財務相對獨立的轉變。

1920年，《新社會》與《人道》相繼停刊。然而，《新社會》同人反而迎來轉機，將過往在青年會體系中積累的經驗轉化為組織文學研究會的基礎。透過考察文學研究會的「前史」──包括《批評》半月刊、燕大文學研究會等──本文主張，文學研究會實以《新社會》同人為核心，循其模式擴大組建而成。文學研究會的成功，不僅在於承繼《新青年》的「中心」意識，更在於汲取「改造聯合」因「標明主義」而分裂的教訓，發展出高度重視人際網絡、不強求統一文學主張的「著作同業工會」性格。另一方面，之於行動者個人，文學研究會標舉的「為人生」口號，其實質意涵是「為文學家自己的人生」，即強調文學的職業化。對這群「邊緣知識分子」而言，唯有將文學轉化為一種受社會認可的職業，方能於社會結構劇變的時代中覓得安身立命之所。

經由與青年會體系的互動，《新社會》同人脫離原先邊緣化處境的歷程，實則折射出近代中國知識分子在社會結構劇烈轉型期中「尋找安身立命之所」的多重意涵。在個人層面，「安身立命」意味著在傳統仕進體系崩解之後，重新建構一套得以維持生計、獲得社會認可的職業路徑；在身分認同層面，它關乎如何在「士」的文化傳統與現代知識分子角色之間尋得新的自我定位；在社會結構層面，它更指向一個歷史性的命題──當舊有的社會秩序與位置系統全面瓦解，新的場域規則與權力分配尚未穩定之際，知識群體如何透過組織的建立、制度的設計與話語權的爭奪，為自身於新秩序中開闢出具備合法性與延續性的社會位置。

This thesis examines the ten-day journal New Society (Hsin She-hui) founded in 1919 and its five core members—Ch'ü Ch'iu-pai, Keng Chi-chih, Cheng Chen-to, Ch'ü Shih-ying, and Hsü Ti-shan—to explore how these young intellectuals, initially positioned at the “margins” of Beijing’s student circles, managed to break through toward the “center” of the intellectual field between 1917 and 1921 through deep engagement with the Peking Young Men's Christian Association (Peking YMCA). Drawing on Lo Chih-t'ien’s analytical framework of “marginal intellectuals” and incorporating Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory and André Lefevere’s patronage theory, this study conceptualizes the May Fourth intellectual world as a dynamic and highly competitive cultural field, where intellectual identity construction can be understood as a process of capital accumulation, borrowing, and conversion.

Through extensive use of primary sources including the complete run of New Society, personal correspondence and memoirs of the group members, Peking YMCA archives, Yenching University documents, and contemporary periodicals, this thesis reconstructs the concrete historical contexts and strategic choices of the New Society group. The research reveals that these five young men, who settled in Beijing’s eastern district around 1917, established connections with the Peking YMCA through geographical proximity. The YMCA library’s collection of Russian literary works and North American sociology books represented scarce knowledge resources in Beijing at the time, providing crucial cultural capital for this group’s intellectual development. YMCA staff member John Stewart Burgess’s hierarchical perception of Beijing’s “West City-center” versus “East City-margin” illuminates the marginal position of the New Society group within Beijing’s student circles.

The thesis further examines the influence of the “Beijing Social Service Club” (She-hui Shih-chin Hui) on the New Society members. Founded as part of the YMCA system's missionary strategy centered on “social service,” the Club introduced social survey methods that became foundational for the group’s later engagement with social reform discourse. During the May Fourth Movement, as elite institutions like Peking University and Higher Normal School faced repeated suppression, Yenching University—closely affiliated with the Peking YMCA—became a sanctuary for student activists due to its American missionary background, enabling the marginal New Society members to continue participating in the movement and accumulating social capital.

In terms of journal management, this study reveals how New Society established distinction through a “double rupture” strategy. First, by promoting YMCA-derived concepts of “social service” and “social survey,” the journal differentiated itself from other May Fourth publications that merely engaged in empty talk of reform. While initially emulating New Youth (Hsin Ch'ing-nien) in format and topic selection to position itself within the New Culture field, New Society soon executed a second rupture by extensively translating North American sociological theories—still scarce in China—to carve out a unique niche. These theoretical resources came primarily from Burgess and Yenching University’s sociology curriculum, with Cheng Chen-to, Ch'ü Shih-ying, and Hsü Ti-shan gradually gaining editorial authority through their contributions. This strategy’s success manifested in expanded circulation and advertising revenue from American and Sino-American enterprises, enabling New Society to transition from dependence on the YMCA as sole patron to relative financial independence.

When both New Society and its successor Humanity (Jen-tao) ceased publication in 1920, the group transformed their accumulated experience within the YMCA system into the foundation for organizing the Literary Association. This thesis argues that the Literary Association was essentially built by expanding the New Society model, with the group at its core. Learning from the Reform Alliance’s dissolution over debates on “proclaiming doctrine,” the Literary Association positioned itself as a “trade union of writers,” prioritizing interpersonal networks over unified literary doctrine. The slogan “art for life’s sake” essentially meant “art for the writer’s own life”—emphasizing the professionalization of literature. For these marginal intellectuals, only by transforming literature into a socially recognized profession could they secure their livelihood in an era of dramatic social structural change.

This research makes several contributions: first, it excavates and systematically connects previously scattered archival materials, particularly YMCA archives and their relationship to May Fourth publications; second, it supplements existing historical narratives by revealing the deep interactions between these intellectuals and Christian institutions and North American sociology; third, it provides a new analytical framework for understanding modern Chinese intellectual fields by demonstrating how “center” and “margin” positions are dynamically generated through ongoing competition and negotiation; finally, it reinterprets “art for life’s sake” not merely as a literary stance but as deeply connected to the professionalization and survival strategies of intellectuals. The Literary Association’s formation thus represents not only literary innovation but also a collective response by a generation of intellectuals facing existential crisis in an era when traditional advancement paths had collapsed while new social structures remained unsolidified.