本文以蘇聯作家尼古拉．奧斯特洛夫欺基(Nikolai Ostrovskii)的小《鋼鐵是無樣煉成的》中的主人翁保爾．柯察金(Pavel/Paul Korchagin)為焦點，探討他以革命英雄典型的身份，在中人陸的政治運動中與社會五裡所扮演的角色。本文主要處理的時段是從中共建國到文革結。保爾．柯察金在小說中展現出蘇聯內戰時期與敵人鬥爭的精神、堅忍不拔的意志、對黨的忠貞，是史大林政權所要提倡的英雄榜樣。這樣的精神也正是他被引進中國的主要原因。 對毛澤東而言，革命不只是政權的轉移，更重要的是一場從根做起的社會改造。因此，毛取得大陸政權之後，亟欲擺說過去所謂舊的資產階級文化、上層菁英文化，亟欲建立新的社會主義文化、新的大眾文化。如何塑造「社會主義新人」，建立新的人生觀，成為當務之急 保爾的英雄形象與特質，正好為這種新的大眾文化提供典範，作為教育新人的榜樣。自中共建國以來，有關當局大量譯介《鋼鐵是怎樣煉成的》一書，並透過電影、話劇、教科書、成立保爾班等各種管道，宣揚保爾精神，加上共青團的配合，期望將中國大陸的青少年塑造成「社會主義新人」。 但是保爾精神的內涵，也由於政治環境的改變，官方所強調的重點時有不同：從韓戰的愛國精神、社會主義建設時期的不畏艱辛、到文革的的階級鬥爭與無產階級專攻。並且民間的解讀《鋼鐵是怎樣煉成的》，不一定完全隨著中共官方的指揮棒起舞。一般而言，到中共改革開放之前，官方與民間對保爾精神的解讀有很大程度的交集。而解讀的最大歧異則在保爾與他初變情人的愛情。從官方、民間解讀之異同，可以看出文化生產者（國家）與文化消費者（社會大眾）是種協商關係，不是截然二分，並非國家在控制一切，而民間只有消極被動的接受；反之亦然。換言之，這整個文化生產其實是種多元參與的過程，不管民間與官方對保爾精神解讀的異與同，都已經是這整個大眾文化的一部分，不能說其中只有菁英（或製造者）才是主角。這個案例展現了法蘭克福學派與Joho Fiske對大眾文化的看法呈現兩極的詮譯，並不足以反映歷史實情。

　　　　　This article uses the hero, Pavel/Paul Korchagin, of a Soviet novel, How the Steel Was Tempered, written by Nikolai Ostrovskii, as a case study to explore his role played in the political culture and society in Mainland China, mainly from 1949 to the end of the Cultural Revolution. In the novel P. Korchagin's performance during the civil war in Russia demonstrating the fighting spirit against the enemies, steel-like will, and loyalty to the communist party was the ideal-type revolutionary hero in Stalin's regime. It is exactly for the same reason that the Chinese Communist Party introduced the Soviet hero to China. For Mao Zedong, revolution does not only mean the transfer of political power, it is more important to reform the society. After seizing power in 1949, Mao Zedong was eagerly to uproot the old bourgeois culture and the elite culture and to establish new socialist culture and new mass culture. How to mold "new socialist men" and to establish new socialist values became an urgent task to tackle. P. Korchagin's heroic image and features offer the best example for making new men and new mass culture. Since 1950s the Chinese Communist Party massively translated different editions of the novel to meet the need of different readers' level. It also utilized various channels, such as movie, drama, textbooks, founding the classes of Paul in schools, and the coordination work by the Communist Youth, to publicize Paul's spirit in order to make the youth become socialist new men. However, the authorities emphasized the contents of Paul's spirit differently in accordance with different political climates: the patriotism during the Korean War, the steel will and hardworking during the so-called the period of socialist construction, and the class struggle and the proletarian dictatorship during the Cultural Revolution. The interpretations of the "Paul's spirit" by the authorities were not necessarily conicded with the people's interpretations. Generally speaking, before Mainland China entered the stage of reform, initiated by Deng Xiaoping, there were large portions of overlap between the two. The main difference between the two sides appears in their interpretations on the love of Paul and Tonya. From the different interpretations by the party authorities and the people indicate that the relations between the cultural producer (the state) and the cultural consumers (the people) are negotiated. It is not that the state can totally control the interpretation of a cultural product (Paul's spirit) and people can only passively accept the state's interpretation, or vice versa. In other words, the process of cultural production is the process of multi-participation. No matter for the differences and similarities of the interpretations by the authorities and by the masses, all of them has become part of the mass culture. One cannot simply state that only the elite (or the producer) is the major figure of making mass culture. This case study, presented by P. Korchagin's revolutionary ideal hero, clearly demonstrates that the polar interpretations on mass culture by the Frankfurt school and John Fiske do not reflect the historical reality.