“新中国60年”和“改革开放30年”的历史叙述

最近几年，在以电视为媒介的大众文化中，逐渐形成了两种关于“新中国60年”和“改革开放30年”的叙述策略。前者通过把20世纪50～70年代叙述为“激情燃烧的岁月”，使得革命历史不被作为异质性的存在，而缝合了七八十年代之交的历史断裂；后者则把90年代中期的下岗事件书写为一种个人的创伤体验，通过成功地治愈伤口而完成对当下社会的认同。这样两种策略不仅使得七八十年代之交的“伤痕”获得修复，而且对于90年代中期出现的“改革共识”的破裂也做出了适当的回应。也就是说，一种日渐显影的主流意识形态不仅使得50～70年代的革命历史和80年代以来的现代化历史被顺畅地组接在一起，而且使得改革开放内部的裂痕也获得某种程度上的修复。因此，缝合断裂和治愈伤口成为主流意识形态确立文化领导权的重要方式。

The Two Narrative Strategies in "The 60th Anniversary of New China" and "The 30th Anniversary of Reform and Openness"

In recent years, there have appeared in mass media, mainly on TV, two kinds of documentaries with two narrative strategies, namely the documentary of ＂the 60^th Anniversary of New China＂ and the documentary of and ＂the 30^th Anniversary of Reform and Openness＂. The former describes the years from 1950s to 1970s as ＂ages blazed with enthusiasm,＂ making that part of the revolutionary history a natural prelude rather than an incongruous antecedent to the reform history of 70s and 80s. The latter recounts the massive lay-off in the middle of 90s as personal traumatic experiences, and suggests that social identity is attained through healing the trauma. These two strategies not only try to bridge the rift between 70s and 80s, but also adequately account for the breakdown of the ＂reform consensus＂ in the middle of 90s. In other words, an emerging mainstream ideology has not only made a smooth transition between the revolutionary ages of 50s - 70s and the modernization history since 80s, but has to some extent fixed the internal crack in the regime of reform and openness. In this way, the emerging mainstream ideology is establishing its cultural authority.