本文探討章太炎對現代性的迎拒，正因有迎有拒，故有多元思想的表述。晚清迎接「現代」人士，諸如康有為等變法派，認為「現代化」乃人類公共之理，西方不過是得「風氣」之先，最後全球都會進入「大同」的美境，社會達爾文思想的影響更加強化了這種文化一元論的思維。章太炎雖也深受近代民族主義以及社會達爾文主義的影響，早年所寫的《訄書》反映現代西學對他的影響，及發表〈俱分進化論〉，不再認為進化乃人類的公理，對現代性有迎有拒。他認為世界各歷史與文化有其獨特性，不能強同，而應並行不悖。故本文以文化多元思想為章氏的核心思想，而此一思想在其《齊物論釋》中做了充分的表述，實有異於所謂「以佛釋莊」之說。 章氏的文化多元思想可說是對西方或現代的一種回應，這種回應也可略見之於情勢近似的十九世紀俄國和日本。太炎並不清楚俄國的親斯拉夫派，但深知日本政教社的思想，在西方或現代的挑戰之下，在不排斥西方文化的前提下，力保本國的傳統文化，都不約而同地獲致所謂多元文化的結論。太炎稱之為齊物，取齊其不齊之意，也就是多元的各種文化都有其獨特的性格，平等的地位。此一文化多元思想的表述也可視為章氏之現代性建構。

　　　　　This essay explores Zhang Binglin's (1869-1936) knowledge and critique of Western modernity. As a conscientious thinker active during the late Qing and early Republican period, Zhang acquired Western knowledge via Japan and reached his own version of cultural pluralism through a critical response to the West. Although his fame as a classical Chinese scholar and his anti-Manchu activism gave him a reputation as a traditionist, he was in essence a pioneer of modern Chinese thought His early book, “Words of Urgency” (Qiushu), displays knowledge of modernity and arguments for it. Zhang here often cited Western history and theories to make his points. From his Western knowledge he sensed the crisis of the traditional Chinese learning, wondering if talented contemporary scholars could ever catch up with the West in scholarship. Zhang also came under the influence of Social Darwinism, from which he noted the necessity of change and accommodation. But he did not think change equated to Westernization; rather, he found the need to accommodate China’s own distinct culture and evolved China's own modernity. Zhang realized each human culture had its unique characteristics. Under the threat of foreign imperialism, he increasingly felt compelled to preserve China's national essence, in particular its history, language, and customs, in order to maintain national identity. Unlike the conservatives of his time, Zhang had no intention of rejecting foreign culture. What he looked for was cultural pluralism, which he theorized most clearly in his study of Zhuangzi's “Essay on Relativism” (Qiwulun). Zhang filled the old bottle of Daoist insights with the new wine of pluralism. In similar ways nineteenth-century Russian and Japanese intellectuals also searched for their respective cultural autonomy under the impact of the West. The Slavophiles renewed their concern about the purity and independence of Russian traditions. In Japan, a new generation of Meiji intellectuals centered at Seiky?sha in the 1880s sought cultural autonomy. Both the Russians and the Japanese recognized the superiority of the modern West in particular areas, but they rejected cultural universalism. The modern world, in other words, should accommodate various different cultures. Zhang might not have been aware of the Slavophiles, but he had a close connection with the Seiky?sha intellectuals. Not surprisingly, the same cultural problem brought the Russians, the Japanese, and Zhang to the similar conclusions.