Revolution of the Heart的读后感大全

《Revolution of the Heart》是一本由Haiyan Lee著作，Stanford University Press出版的Hardcover图书，本书定价：USD 65.00，页数：364，特精心收集的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

《Revolution of the Heart》读后感(一)：书的结构脉络

李海燕《心灵的革命：1900-1950年中国情爱的谱系》

儒家思想、启蒙运动、情感革命

第一部分：

冯梦龙《情史》

汤显祖《牡丹亭》

曹雪芹《红楼梦》

第二部分：

新兴浪漫主义和心理分析学派如何取代了早先伦理对爱的定义，并且介绍了恋爱自由这一广泛认同的主题如何挑战了儒家的家庭秩序。

第三章：Charles Taylor: 作为爱情出现，作为婚姻出现，作为游戏出现

第四章：社会言论：主题相关性和意识形态性

张竞生：《爱情四定则》（1923.4.29）

• 爱情是有条件的

• 爱情是可比较的

• 爱情是可变迁的

• 夫妻为朋友的一种

第五章：重新定义“爱”

心理分析

第六章：通过对鲁迅经典作品的重新审视，凸显出鲁迅对于当时社会大众缺乏爱与同情的展现。作者进而强迫追寻作为一个国家民族的讨论应更多检视国家同情与民族性格的关系。

郁达夫《沉沦》：错误的国家同情的逻辑。

第七章：

晚清时期的儿女英雄体裁的新形式“革命加爱情”。作者主要关注党派间左翼和右翼是如何规定和平衡这种流行的文学体裁，并且重申集体的优越性和否定个人。

抗日战争和解放战争重新定义了文学和文化。在社会主义时期，爱这个主题逐渐被新的激进的主张隔离起来。

强调情感是新的社会秩序的合法化基础，也是中国现代性追求的转变基础。

《Revolution of the Heart》读后感(二)：Love "not" for the love's sake.

终于在纽约 settle down 了。这一周忙着购置各种生活用品、探索周围街区、和处理各种logistics，但还是把这本书看完了！确实写得不错，印象深刻的论述有以下几个：

1. 无论是哪种感觉结构（儒家、启蒙、或革命）爱情本身都几乎不能构成目的，总是手段、工具一样的存在。在儒家的感觉结构那里，爱情只不过是统一的、超越性的美德在具体情境下的化身；在革命的感觉结构里，就更不必说了，爱情的合法性就来源于革命，要么是革命的产物、要么是革命的动机与工具。而青年人的大忌就是因为爱情而徘徊在日常生活的层面，不能有更高的追求。在启蒙那里，这一点经由子君的悲剧而更加残酷：如果浪漫爱只是 means，而实现自由才是 ends，那么当爱成了自由的阻碍的时候，爱当然会被残忍地抛弃。

2. 论述爱情与婚姻同民族主义和激进革命之间的联系相当精彩。自由恋爱和婚姻当然促进了民族主义：通过否认任何因宗族的、地方的、阶级的边界而形成的限制、通过大声宣布任何两个人都能自由地相爱，浪漫爱与婚姻成功孕育了民族共同体、创造了民族同情。激进革命也是如此，革命要求现代主体（有 agency 和 interiority），而爱情能保证这个深度。因为有情，革命主体才能超越自身阶级的限制，和广大的受苦大众共情。所以革命者不能没有爱情。在这里 sublimation 和 supplement 的区分真的是非常精彩，以往我们都习惯于认为革命要求力比多的升华，从私人日常的情爱上升到政治与革命的热情。但李海燕则指出，爱情是革命的必要补充，而不是某种尚待加工为革命热情的中间物。革命者必须是有情人，唯一的要求是革命者必须保证这种日常和私人之情不能成为生活的中心或全部。所以爱情是 supplement 而不是 sublimation

3. 有关民族同情那一章写得好。尤其是鲁迅的复杂和悲观。一方面确信缺乏民族同情确实是病根之一（《药》），但另一方面很快又发现当各种压迫和伤害复杂地交织在一起的时候，到底该怎么同情，同情是否已经变得不可能了（《阿Q》）。同一章里的《沉沦》分析地也很不错。民族同情的话语如此 hegemonic，以至于个人的欲望永远为其所吞没而无法实现。这种批评实际上是在问到底是谁阉割了主角——一个中国青年男学生？是民族危机还是民族主义？

4. 对精神分析话语的引入和流行也讲得细致和精彩。精神分析一方面借压抑来批判传统，但另一方面却只把性压抑作为唯一的批判对象，带来阐释的暴力，很难触及压抑背后的政治和社会根源。i.e. 精神分析批判性压抑而释放出的性欲望完全是 normative heterosexual libido。

5. 得列文森奖的书，写法上有一点值得借鉴：经常用理论来实现文本和观点之间的承接和转折。确实需要学习。

《Revolution of the Heart》读后感(三)：列文森中国研究书籍奖颁奖词

Haiyan Lee, "Revolution of the Heart: A Genealogy of Love in China" (Stanford University Press, 2007)

Revolution of the Heart is an imaginative and well-researched study of sentiment as public discourse in modern China. Haiyan Lee’s innovative approach to the matters of love, emotion, intimacy and sexuality has brought the study of modern China to a new level of theoretical rigor and sophistication. This book raises important questions about the place of love and affectivity in modern political discourse, nationalist struggle, social transformation and revolution. The author makes the modern and premodern divide untenable by taking us back to the cult of qing, demonstrating convincingly how this earlier philosophical tradition and its reworking by modern writers in 1900–1950 can help reframe the highly contested articulations of moral sentiment in the May Fourth episteme of romantic love. Her close readings of familiar and unfamiliar texts are always illuminating and sometimes even surprising and provocative.

Love is a vast subject for an academic book such as this, but Haiyan Lee has risen to the challenge with aplomb. Does love matter to politics？ This central question raised by her excellent book troubles the distinction between the public and private spheres and explains why literature has been central to social struggle. As the most prominent public discourse of sentiment, literature occupies the center stage in her study but her concerns are social, political, and historical. The book is distinguished by its dynamic and fruitful engagement with the question of moral vision in modern China and, as such, is richly deserving of the Joseph Levenson Prize.

Selection Committee: Michael Dutton (Chair); Sherman Cochran; Lydia Liu.

《Revolution of the Heart》读后感(四)：Subjectivity, Sociality and Emotion

The purpose of this study is “to highlight a fundamental transformation of modernity: the reconceptualization of identity and sociality in emotive terms, or the signification of emotion as the legitimizing basis for a new social order.(3)” In explicating the role of emotion in structuring individual identity and sociality, Lee mainly engages in a “genealogy of love” insofar as it is problematized in language. That is to say, this study makes use of literary materials to examine changes in social paradigm.

On the level of methodology, Lee proclaims her work to be “post-structuralist”(8). She refuses to take “love” as the heart’s “native language”, but proposes that “the heart always speaks in borrowed tongues.” These borrowed tongues enable “new modes of being and new possibilities for action(300), whose study is called “historical epistemology.” Another ambition of this work is to link studies in humanities and social sciences. Regarding this specific topic, Lee writes, “the connection [between subject and political community] resides in the fact that the modern subject is first and foremost a sentimental subject, and that the modern nation is first and foremost a community of sympathy.”

On the level of literary history, Lee argues against the master narrative of sentimental emancipation initiated by May Fourth, which simply views the pre-May Fourth China as a history of sentimental repression. Instead, she proposes three structures of feeling, the transition between which counts as the “transformation of modernity.” Lee sticks to one criterion in examining the types of emotional structure, namely, how emotion serves the construction of individual identity and social institutions.

Under such a standard, traditional Chinese society regarded “love” with distrust, rendering it inferior to the hierarchical world of family and state. Lee proposes that Wang Yangming school’s greatest challenge to orthodoxy is “the claiming for qing a foundational status previously reserved for xing or li”, viewing it as the “human nature, the material basis of heavenly principle, the origin of all virtues.(34)”

In the first chapter Lee discusses 馮夢龍《情史》、湯顯祖《牡丹亭》、曹雪芹《紅樓夢》、文康《兒女英雄傳》and《花月痕》, pointing out that only HLM promotes an ideal man against government service and ethical principles, thus later receiving special praise from May Fourth writers.

Then Lee re-reads Mandarin Duck and Butterfly fiction to explicate “why love became the all-consuming subject at the turn of the century”(61). By examining 恨海 and 玉梨魂she discovers that the ernu yingxiong’s “reigning identity has become that of sentimental lovers whose heroism is defined by their courage to love and to die for the newly imagined community of nation.(81)” However, such a “Butterfly nationalism” still within the terms of the Confucian structure of feeling.

Part II discusses “the enlightenment structure of feeling”. Through discussing the translation of La dame aux Camelias and The Sorrows of Young Werther, as well as 沙菲女士的日記, the interpretation of 孔雀東南飛, Lee identifies a type of love that is “a hypergood that demands total faith and supreme sacrifices and subsumes all of life’s purposes”(137). It is a discrete domain of experience centered on eroticism and gamesmanship largely influenced by Freudian psycho-analysis.

Lee goes further in this part to examine the concept of love in social institutions and activities such as the GMD regime’s endorsement of Confucin revivalism in 1920-30s.

As she writes, “my object in this chapter has primarily been to explore the May Fourth mobilization of the repressive hypothesis and the mechanisms and implications of psychoanalyzing premodern texts.(215)”

Finally, Part III deals with “The Revolutionary Structure of Feeling.” Here the author focuses on a term “national sympathy”, saying “the quest for national sympathy hegemonized the May Fourth project of emancipatory subjectivity and sociality and laid the groundwork for the revolutionary structure of feeling.(254)” What, then, is a revolutionary structure of feeling？ Lee examines two novels of the Mao time to say “the socialist grammar is a synthesis of the Confucian, enlightenment, and revolutionary structures of feeling.(287)” She also talks about the post-Mao China in the conclusion part.

This whole study is a fine attempt to bring together literary reading and topics of social changes. Emotion, particularly love, well serves as the topic of such a study since, indeed as the author claims, it involves both personal identity, and, in the specific historical context, the notion of Chinese nation.

The author cites from numerous literary texts, works of Enlightenment study, and other Western theorists, all of which render the reading of this book a time-consuming project. Thus my comments here are only tentative.

With due respect for this ambitious work, I feel yet unconvinced. Take the first part for example, the author’s readings of Mudan ting and Honglou meng do not add much to what we have generally known about them. Neither does her interpretation of Wang Yangming based on her focus on identity and sociality sound quite enlightening. Perhaps the value of this book lies more in the second two parts. It’s a pity that I have little to say about them for now.

Confucian-enlightenment-revolutionary: does it depict a paradigmatic change of emotion that inspires a keen reader？ Perhaps to some.