在有關(guān)魯迅思想的研究中，大量的成果集中在“改造國民性”問題上。馮驥才在《收獲》上發(fā)表的《魯迅的“功”與“過”》中認為，魯迅作品的成功之處即在于獨特的“國民性批判”，“在魯迅之前的文學(xué)史上，我們還找不到這種先例”，但這不過是“源自１８４０年以來西方傳教士”的舶來品，魯迅從中受到了啟發(fā)和點撥，卻沒有看到里面所埋伏著的西方霸權(quán)話語。馮驥才進而認為魯迅沒能走出“西方中心主義”和被西方人認作經(jīng)典的以審丑為主要特征的“東方主義”的磁場。這一度引起了學(xué)者們的激烈爭鳴。陳漱渝在《由〈收獲〉風(fēng)波引發(fā)的思考》和《挑戰(zhàn)經(jīng)典——新時期關(guān)于魯迅的幾次論爭》中認為，魯迅改造國民性思想形成過程中，的確受到美國傳教士亞瑟·亨·史密斯《中國人氣質(zhì)》一書的影響。然而，“魯迅展示中國人的丑陋面，并非印證西方侵略者征服東方的合理性和合法性，而是在展示種種丑陋的過程中滲透了作家的憂患意識和否定性評價，使讀者在否定性的體驗中獲得審美愉悅?！秉S川在《亞瑟·亨·史密斯與東方主義》中重點分析了“東方主義”一詞的含義和史密斯《中國人氣質(zhì)》一書的詳細情況，指出馮驥才把“東方主義”加之于魯迅的頭上是“輕率的、不科學(xué)的”。

In the study of Lu Xun's thought, a lot of achievements are focused on the problem of "transforming national character". In Lu Xun's "merits" and "faults" published by Feng Jicai in the harvest, the success of Lu Xun's works lies in his unique "criticism of national character". We can't find such a precedent in the literary history before Lu Xun, but it's just an imported product from "Western missionaries since 1840", from which Lu Xun was inspired and pointed out, but he didn't We can see the western hegemonic discourse lurking in it. Feng Jicai went on to think that Lu Xun failed to get rid of the "western centralism" and the "Orientalism" which was regarded as the classic by the westerners and characterized by judging ugliness. At one time, this aroused fierce contention among scholars. Chen Shuyu, in his reflections caused by the storm of "harvest" and "challenging Classics: several debates on Lu Xun in the new era", believes that Lu Xun's thought of transforming national character was indeed influenced by the book "Chinese temperament" by Arthur Heng Smith, an American missionary. However, "Lu Xun's display of the ugliness of the Chinese people does not confirm the rationality and legitimacy of the western invaders' conquest of the East, but permeates the writer's sense of suffering and negative evaluation in the process of displaying all kinds of ugliness, so that the readers can get aesthetic pleasure in the negative experience." In Arthur Heng Smith and Orientalism, Huang Chuan analyzed the meaning of Orientalism and the details of Smith's temperament of Chinese. He pointed out that Feng Jicai's adding Orientalism to Lu Xun's head was "rash and unscientific".

由論爭引發(fā)，對國民性問題的研究被導(dǎo)入了十分廣泛、深刻的領(lǐng)域。對于魯迅國民性批判思想形成的淵源，日本學(xué)者北岡正子的《魯迅改造國民性思想的由來》以翔實的史料證實：魯迅留日時期與許壽裳關(guān)于國民性的探討，是受到當(dāng)時弘文學(xué)院院長加納治五郎與中國學(xué)者楊度關(guān)于國民性討論的直接觸動。潘世圣的《關(guān)于魯迅的早期論文及改造國民性思想》認為，“青年魯迅的改造國民性思想問題，其實與近代西方，明治日本，他的先輩思想家如梁啟超以及與他同時代的留日學(xué)生有著多樣的聯(lián)系，魯迅的思想很大程度上反映著他的時代，他的周邊世界的精神傾向?！蓖鯇W(xué)謙在《精神創(chuàng)傷的升華——“魯迅改造國民性”思想形成的心理因素》中指出，幼時的家庭變故使魯迅的心靈受到嚴重創(chuàng)傷，直接影響了魯迅人生道路的選擇，并促成了其改造國民性的思想。程致中在《魯迅國民性批判探源》中認為，魯迅改造國民性思想的形成不是偶然的，也不是某一單方面的影響，而是多種因素的綜合，包括資產(chǎn)階級啟蒙思想家的影響，西方啟蒙思想的影響，有關(guān)國民性的討論的影響，外國人研究中國國民性的著作的影響以及對中國傳統(tǒng)文化的痛切反省和刻骨銘心的生命體驗的影響等等。袁盛勇的《國民性批判的困惑》則認為，魯迅的改造國民性思想主要源于一種強烈的自省意識，他看到了我們國人的“古老鬼魂中”還有一個“我”，因而，“魯迅的國民性話語是一種自我在場的啟蒙話語……他把自己拽進話語語場的同時，也一并讓讀者沉入其間，在自我反省中殺出一條生路”。尹康莊的《魯迅的民眾觀》指出，魯迅“致力終身的改造國民性思想與實踐的邏輯起點”，是魯迅對民眾的“否定與肯定之間所形成的悖論”。方長安的《魯迅立人思想與日本文化》認為，魯迅的改造國民性是和立人思想緊密結(jié)合在一起的，這深受日本顯性文化與隱性文化亦即現(xiàn)代文化與傳統(tǒng)文化的影響。

Triggered by the controversy, the study of national character has been introduced into a very wide and profound field. As for the origin of Lu Xun's critical thought of national character, Japanese scholar Masako kitoka's "the origin of Lu Xun's thought of transforming national character" proves with detailed historical data that the discussion on national character between Lu Xun and Xu shouchang during his stay in Japan was directly touched by the discussion on national character between the president of Hongwen University at that time, kanachi Wulang, and Chinese scholar Yang Du. Pan Shisheng's "on Lu Xun's early thesis and the thought of transforming national character" holds that "the problem of young Lu Xun's thought of transforming national character is actually related to the modern West, Meiji Japan, his predecessors such as Liang Qichao and his students studying in Japan at the same time. Lu Xun's thought largely reflects the spiritual tendency of his era and his surrounding world. ”Wang Xueqian pointed out in the sublimation of mental trauma -- the psychological factors of the formation of Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character that Lu Xun's mind was seriously traumatized by his family changes in his childhood, which directly affected Lu Xun's choice of life path and contributed to his thought of reforming national character. In Lu Xun's critical exploration of national character, Cheng Zhizhong believed that the formation of Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character was not accidental, nor a unilateral influence, but a combination of many factors, including the influence of bourgeois Enlightenment thinkers, the influence of western enlightenment thoughts, the influence of discussion on national character, the influence of foreigners' research on Chinese national character and its influence on China Chinese traditional culture is deeply introspective and deeply influenced by life experience. Yuan Shengyong's puzzlement of criticism of national character thinks that Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character mainly comes from a strong sense of introspection. He sees that there is another "I" in the "ancient ghost" of our people, so "Lu Xun's national character discourse is an enlightenment discourse of self presence He not only brings himself into the discourse field, but also lets the readers sink into it, and kills a life path in self reflection. Yin Kangzhuang's "Lu Xun's view on the masses" points out that Lu Xun's "logical starting point of reforming the national thought and Practice for life" is Lu Xun's "paradox formed between negation and affirmation" to the masses. Fang Chang'an's "Lu Xun's thought of establishing people and Japanese culture" believes that Lu Xun's transformation of national character is closely combined with his thought of establishing people, which is deeply influenced by Japanese dominant culture and recessive culture, that is, modern culture and traditional culture.

魯迅改造國民性思想研究的深化還表現(xiàn)在“魯迅改造中國國民性思想研討會”的舉行。這一學(xué)術(shù)會議是由汪衛(wèi)東的《魯迅國民性批判的內(nèi)在邏輯系統(tǒng)》和竹潛民的《中國國民性“密碼”和“原點”探秘——兼與汪衛(wèi)東先生商榷》爭鳴文章引起。前文認為中國國民性“原點”和“密碼”以“私欲中心”四字概括，后文表示了不同意見，認為中國國民性的“原點”和“密碼”應(yīng)是“自欺欺人”。陳越認為汪衛(wèi)東的“私欲中心”失之太泛，竹潛民的“自欺欺人”不是“對國民性劣根性表現(xiàn)的深層原點的概括”。周楠本指出，“自欺欺人”說實際已包含于“精神勝利法”中，而“私欲中心”是和“精神勝利法”一樣的國民劣根性表現(xiàn)，因而“原點”和“密碼”的提出并無多少新意。張恩和和林非都肯定了從“私欲中心”和“自欺欺人”入手探討魯迅改造國民性思想的積極意義，特別認為以“自欺欺人”為中心展開對國民性弊端的分析是“頗有道理的”。但對國民劣根性的形成，他們都認為原因不是別的，而是封建專制制度和絕對權(quán)力統(tǒng)治的結(jié)果，“在這樣嚴格的等級制度的規(guī)范和限制下，怎么能不產(chǎn)生退守、懶惰、卑怯、奴性、虛偽巧滑、自欺欺人等各種各樣的國民性”（張恩和語）。錢理群的論點有三：一、魯迅改造國民性思想的提出是從中國的現(xiàn)實出發(fā)，不是外來思潮的移植；二、改造國民性問題涉及對民眾的看法，魯迅一向把民眾分成兩類，即“厥心純白”的樸素之民和“在名教斧鉞底下”失去了天性的“無名主無意識的殺人團”，魯迅的批判鋒芒主要指向后者；三、對“真”與“誠”的倡導(dǎo)，對“偽”的批判是魯迅一生的命題。孫玉石認為，魯迅的改造國民性思想，他的“揭出病苦，引起療救的注意”的創(chuàng)作動因，繼承了歷史上一切優(yōu)秀文學(xué)傳統(tǒng)擁有的“大愛與大憎結(jié)合的精神”，體現(xiàn)的是文學(xué)創(chuàng)作的永恒的主題，因而孤立地研究魯迅改造國民性思想的“密碼”與“原點”，“沒有什么真正的學(xué)術(shù)意義”。孫玉石提出應(yīng)當(dāng)特別尊重魯迅作為文學(xué)家的思想家的“獨特性”，這就是：“他是以自己的直接感悟與無休止批判來輻射他的思想能量，而不是在邏輯系統(tǒng)的思考中來論證他的思想凝結(jié)的。他追求關(guān)注的一貫性，批判的直擊性卻不一定有哲學(xué)家思想的嚴密性?！?/p>

The deepening of the research on Lu Xun 's thought of transforming the national character is also reflected in the holding of the seminar on Lu Xun' s thought of transforming the national character of China. This academic conference is caused by the contending articles of Wang Weidong's "the internal logic system of Lu Xun's criticism of national character" and Zhu qianmin's "exploration of the" code "and" origin "of Chinese national character - and discussion with Mr. Wang Weidong". The former thought that the "origin" and "code" of Chinese national character are summarized in the four words of "selfish desire center", and the latter expressed different opinions, and thought that the "origin" and "code" of Chinese national character should be "self deception". Chen Yue thinks that Wang Weidong's "center of selfish desire" is too extensive, and that the "self deception" of bamboo potential people is not "a summary of the deep origin of the performance of the national bad nature". Zhou nanben pointed out that the theory of "self deception" was actually included in the "spiritual victory law", while the "selfish desire center" was the same as the "spiritual victory law" in the performance of national evil, so the "origin" and "code" were not much new. Zhang en and Lin Fei both affirmed the positive significance of exploring Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character from the perspective of "selfish desire center" and "self deception", especially thought that it was "reasonable" to analyze the malpractice of national character with "self deception" as the center. However, for the formation of the national inferiority, they all think that the reason is not something else, but the result of the feudal autocracy and absolute power rule. "How can we not produce a variety of national characteristics, such as retreat, laziness, cowardice, servility, hypocrisy, cleverness, self deception and so on, under such a strict hierarchy of norms and restrictions" (Zhang Enhe). Qian Liqun's arguments are as follows: first, Lu Xun's idea of transforming national character is based on China's reality, not the transplantation of foreign thoughts; second, the problem of transforming national character involves his views on the people. Lu Xun has always divided the people into two categories: the simple people with "pure heart" and the "unknown Master's unconscious killing group" who lost their nature under the famous axe axe axe, Lu Xun Third, to advocate "truth" and "sincerity", to criticize "false" is Lu Xun's lifelong proposition. Sun Yushi believes that Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character, his creative motivation of "exposing the suffering and arousing the attention of healing", inherits the "spirit of combining love and hatred" possessed by all the excellent literary traditions in history, embodies the eternal theme of literary creation, and studies the "code" and "origin" of Lu Xun's thought of reforming national character in isolation, so there is nothing Real academic significance ". Sun Yushi proposed that Lu Xun's "uniqueness" as a literary thinker should be specially respected, which is: "he radiates his thought energy with his own direct perception and endless criticism, rather than demonstrates his thought condensation in the thinking of logical system. He pursues the consistency of concern, but the directness of criticism does not necessarily have the strictness of philosopher's thought. "