走出「本質主義」敘事：王年一文革「再發動」說辨析

Moving Beyond Essentialist Narratives: On Wang Nianyi’s Theory of the‘Relaunch of the Cultural Revolution’

王年一（1932-2007）是大陸文革史研究的奠基者，他的《大動亂的年代》是海內外學界公認的經典之作。本文對王年一關於文革發動與再發動的重要觀點進行反思與拓展。王認為，文化大革命的發動並非一蹴而就，而是一個包含多重複雜性的過程。他指出，1966年5月政治局會議通過《五一六通知》標誌著文革的正式發動，但由於各級幹部的不理解與抵制，運動受到壓制。於是，毛澤東在同年8月初召開中共八屆十一中全會，否定中央一線領導的決定，改組高層領導機構，鼓動青年人造反，再次發動文化大革命。王年一的「再發動」觀點揭示了文革發動並非單一、連續的線性進程，而存在顯著差異與斷裂。筆者認為，王的敘述中存在重大認知盲點，即對文革初期的激進文化運動或「文化革命」缺乏足夠理解，這限制了「再發動」一說的創新性。本文提出，深入探究「文化革命」的意義及其與作為「政治大革命」的文化大革命的關係，這對於理解文革發動有重要意義。

Wang Nianyi (1932-2007) stands as one of the foremost pioneers in the scholarly study of the Cultural Revolution in mainland China. His works have garnered widespread recognition and are considered classics by scholars both within China and internationally. This article seeks to critically engage with and expand upon Wang’s seminal and highly influential ideas, particularly his thesis on the“re-launch”of the Cultural Revolution. Wang posited that the onset of the Cultural Revolution was not a straightforward, one-step event but rather a complex and multifaceted process, characterized by distinct phases. He noted that following the formal opening of the Cultural Revolution in May 1966, marked by the issuance of the May 16 Notice by the CCP’s politburo, the movement encountered significant setbacks due to misunderstandings and resistance from various levels of party bureaucracies and cadres. In response, in early August 1966, Mao Zedong convened the 11th Plenary Session of the CCP, during which he overturned decisions made by top leaders such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, reorganized the party’s central leadership, and effectively re-launched the Cultural Revolution by encouraging young people to rise in rebellion. Wang’s“re-launch”thesis underscores that the initiation of the Cultural Revolution was not a continuous, linear progression but one marked by significant ruptures and divergences. However, this article contends that Wang’s narrative contains a historiographical blind spot: it insufficiently addresses the radical cultural movement, or“cultural revolution,”that was salient on the eve of and during the early phase of the Cultural Revolution. This oversight, the article argues, severely limits the full realization of the innovative potential of Wang’s perspective. A more thorough exploration of the significance of this preceding“cultural revolution”is crucial for a deeper understanding of the complex historical processes that underpinned the initiation of Mao’s last revolutionary endeavor.