当前位置:网站首页 > 学术会议

文学理论三十年——从新时期到新世纪国际学术研讨会暨中国中外文艺理论学会第四届代表会在华中师范大学举行

管理员

钱中文

曾繁仁

王先霈

朱立元

蒋述卓

陆贵山

王元骧

曹顺庆

芭芭拉

王宁

奥布赖恩

程正民

胡亚敏

余虹

张宽

伍德曼西

成田興史

张玉能

张荣翼

高楠

姚文放

孙文宪

会场

代表签到

大会主席台

会场

论文目录

30年来的文学理论研究的成绩、新的格局与问题 钱中文 中国社科院文学研究所

文化诗学——从止步处重新起步 童庆炳 北京师范大学

回顾与反思——文艺美学30 曾繁仁 山东大学文艺美学研究中心

文本的文学性与接受的文学性 王先霈 华中师范大学文学院

文学与政治问题反思 陆贵山 中国人民大学

学科范围、体系建构与书写体例——古代文论研究中诸问题的思考

党圣元 中国社科院文学所

新时期三十年中国古代文论的研究实绩及其价值取向 蒋述卓 暨南大学

在后文学理论建设中需要我们思考的三个问题 王元骧 浙江大学

文学经典、世界文学及文学史的重新书写 王宁 清华大学外语系

比较文学变异学学术背景与理论构想 曹顺庆 张雨 四川大学

文艺学的现代性 高楠 辽宁大学

后殖民批评的吊诡 张宽 美国乔治梅森大学现代与古典语文系

西方左翼知识界的危机——管窥当代美国左翼文化理论与批评 刘康 美国杜克大学

开放的民族主义——论中国当代文学批评之立场 胡亚敏 华中师范大学文学院

从文学理论转向理论 周宪 南京大学中文系

重新召唤诗意启蒙——电子媒介主导年代的文学教育 王一川 北京师范大学文学院

新时期美学研究的问题域的转换 张玉能 华中师范大学文学院

文学理论的学理性与寄生性 余虹 中国人民大学文学院

俄罗斯文艺学历史研究和结构研究的结构 程正民 北京师范大学文艺学研究中心

文学性:百年文学理论的现代性追求 姚文放 扬州大学文学院

文学理论研究的知识状况——以文化批评为视角的反思 孙文宪 华中师范大学文学院

跨文化视野中文学研究异质性的三个层次 张荣翼 武汉大学文学院

中西文论异质性比较研究——新批评在中国的命运 代迅 西南大学文学院

文艺理论要面向当代,关注问题——对当下文艺理论研究现状的一些思考

马驰 上海社会科学院思想文化研究中心

新时期文论转型发展之反思 赖大仁 江西师范大学当代形态文艺学研究中心、文学院

审美是一种表达——重申艺术语义学的一种路径 徐岱 浙江大学传媒与国际文化学院

Utopia as Method, Or, the Uses of the Future

作为方法的乌托邦,或未来的用途 弗雷德里克·詹姆逊 杜克大学

Representing Darfur: A Marxist Critique of Ideology

意识形态的马克思主义批评

Anthony O’Brien (Queens College, The City University of New York)

安东尼·奥布赖恩 纽约市立大学昆斯学院

The Politics of Literary Study in the United States: Eight Propositions

美国文学研究中的政治:八个主张

Barbara Foley ( Rutgers University )

芭芭拉·弗雷 美国新泽西州罗特格斯大学

Author”/ “Pirate”: Literary Theory in Global Commerce in Ideas

“原作者”/“侵犯著作权者”:全球观念商业视阈中的文学理论

Martha Woodmansee (Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio)

玛莎·伍德曼西 美国俄亥俄州克里夫兰市 华盛顿天主教大学

T. S. Eliot, Asia and Newly Found Evidence

艾略特, 亚洲和新发现的证据

By Tatsushi Narita (Visiting Fellow, Harvard University;

Professor Emeritus, Nagoya City University)

成田興史 哈佛大学访问学者;日本名古屋市立大学名誉教授

文化研究中的阶级轨迹 陆扬 复旦大学中文系

非文本诗学研究个案分析 高小康 中山大学文学院

禅的思维特征及其表达方式 邱紫华 华中师范大学文学院

审美意识形态辨 郑伟 北京师范大学文学院

文学本质论批判 王进 广州大学人文学院中文系

文学理论发展与学术认同机制 李健 南京大学文化艺术教育中心

时代思想气象与文艺学研究问题 程勇 鲁东大学汉语言文学院

1992年以来文艺理论研究的三个阶段 江守义 安徽师范大学文学院

20世纪80年代文学主体性论争——作为中国当代文论发展史的解读

孟登迎 中国青年政治学院

讽刺性模仿与《阿Q正传》表层叙事结构及其文化意义

——《阿Q正传》叙事文化学分析之一

张开焱 湖北师范学院中文系

本世纪初文学理论建设审视 戴冠青 泉州师范学院中文系

新世纪文学批评研究概评 余三定 湖南理工学院中文系

中国现代文论精神之发掘传承——文学现状与三十年文论建设及其策略的一点思考

金雅 中国社会科学院文学所 杭州师范大学人文学院

主体性·主体间性·后主体性——中国当代文艺学的三元结构 苏宏斌 浙江大学中文系

文化诗学:建构中国当代文学理论的方向 杨红莉 石家庄学院

观看之道——跨学科视野中的文艺学 周计武 南京大学中文系

文化诗学方法中的三个问题 周欣展 南京大学

文学研究范式:从“内结构”到“外结构” 殷曼楟 南京大学哲学系

关于文学批评学学科理论建构的几点思考 顾凤威 广西师范学院

文学理论的反思研究 邢建昌 河北师范大学研究生学院

新时期文艺理论界四“癖”之反思 张冠华 郑州大学文学院

启蒙的多维度与中国现代主义文论的启蒙性 王洪岳 浙江师范大学人文学院

现状、问题与趋势:现代性理论与中国文学研究 张光芒 南京大学中文系

政治元素在当代文学理论中的意涵迁移 孙盛涛 青岛大学师范学院中文系

以道观之——当代文艺学、美学学科建设问题探讨 王建疆 西北师范大学文学院

略论90年代以来的主体物化 张文初 湖南师范大学

经典化批评的现代性历史元叙事及其悖论——以建国后十七年文学批评为中心

李松 武汉大学文学院

作为学科的“中国文论”刍议 牛月明 中国海洋大学文学院

尊体·破体·原体——近30年批评文体研究之实绩 李建中 武汉大学文学院

论墨子的文学观念——兼论孔墨文学观念之异同 王齐洲 华中师范大学

叙事视野下的梁启超文艺思想 赵炎秋 湖南师范大学文学院

古典文论研究与艺术类非物质文化遗产的保护 赖力行 湖南师范大学文学院

古代文论现代化之审思 周兴陆 复旦大学中文系

新时期以来古代文论研究中存在的几个主要问题 黄念然 华中师范大学文学院

古代文论“现代转换”之我见 张帆 沈阳师范大学文学院

王国维“系统圆照”文学研究方法的内涵及其启示 欧阳文风 中南大学文学院

语言分析与批评的中国诗学研究 韩军 华中师范大学文学院

从文史关系看文学的独立性——刘知几之文史关系论 王庆 西华大学人文学院

范畴及其边界 姜金元 中南财经政法大学新闻与文化传播学院中文系

谋求体验与阐释相统一的中国古代文论研究之路 彭维锋 中国劳动关系学院文化传播系

文学研究领域中传播学理论运用初探——以中国古代文学研究为例

柯卓英 西安石油大学人文学院

“五·四”时期胡适的科学思想和文学批评 王济民 华中师范大学文学院

德里达版本的《哈姆莱特》或解构版本的马克思主义——解读德里达《马克思的幽灵们》

郭军 北京语言文化大学

文化研究与文本细读——兼谈“新批评”在当前的借鉴意义

李卫华 河北师范大学文学学院

新时期蒋孔阳的文学批评理论和实践 张玉能 华中师范大学文学院

“术归于学”—近30年来马克思《手稿》的中国文论境遇反思

彭松乔 江汉大学语言文学研究所

本尼特、罗伊尔《文学、批评与理论导论》对我国文学理论研究及教材编写的启示

汪正龙 南京大学中文系

“陌生化”原则与口语化诗歌的“文学性”问题 魏天无 华中师范大学文学院

从作品到文本—兼论俄国形式主义、新批评、结构主义文学文本观的异同

董希文 鲁东大学文学院

找寻一个研究的参照系——日本美学艺术学的研究路径及现状 梁艳萍 湖北大学中文系

西方视域中的意象与幻象—以朗格美学为研究对象 谢冬冰 江苏广播电视大学传媒艺术系

压抑性反升华:齐泽克的创造性再读 徐敏 华中师范大学文学院

“解构”语境中的人道主义 付立峰 云南大学中文系

从现象学到形式主义美学—夏目漱石《文学论》意义新解

张小玲 中国海洋大学外语学院日语系

文学理论与批评具有政治性---特里·伊格尔顿文艺思想学习札记 刘文斌 内蒙古师范大学

都市文化学与中国文学研究 刘士林 上海师范大学人文学院

互联网艺术理论巡礼 黄鸣奋 厦门大学中文系

数字媒介与新世纪文学转型 欧阳友权 中南大学文学院

消费时代戏剧艺术审美特征变异略论 胡立新 黄冈师范学院新闻传播系

论当代日常生活审美的民族化倾向   艾秀梅 南京师范大学

先锋文学与先锋文学的支持网络——关于中国当代先锋文学研究方法论的一点思考

程波 上海大学文学院

身体-肤觉的空间扩展与艺术意境 赵之昂 河南师范大学

新文学图像艺术论 黄薇 中国人民公安大学文学系

走向跨文化研究的文学理论 李庆本 北京语言大学比较文学研究所

试论钟惦棐的电影美学思想 李显杰 华中师范大学文学院

论近30年中国儿童电影批评范式的流变 马力 沈阳师范大学文学院

喜剧性矛盾的结构形态与发展变异 修倜 华中师范大学文学院

戏剧理论研究管窥 刘萍 安徽师范大学文学院

略论中国美学思想中的审丑意识 王庆卫 华中师范大学文学院

现在“是一个不需要经典的时代”吗——对季广茂教授《经典的黄昏与庶民的戏谑》的学术批评

郑惠生 广东汕头教育学院中文系

文艺学的建设性变革及其重构之路 张晶 中国传媒大学文学院

文学批评的修辞论视角在“新时期”的出场及其意义 泓峻 山东大学威海分校中文系

文学意象的生成与命名—探讨文学理论的一个基本概念 孙春旻 广东技术师范学院文学院

小说文本的两种实验读法—以余华的《活着》为例 王学海 浙江省海宁市文联张宗祥书画院

从李健吾文学批评研究看当下文学批评的缺失 周敏 西师范大学文学院

论转义修辞观念的兴起及其理论价值 谭善明 聊城大学文学院

循名责实、纵横交织——新世纪中国美学研究的拓展 祁志祥 上海财经大学中文系

神话与文学批评 胡继华 北京第二外国语学院比较文学与跨文化所

启夕秀于未振——中国古代少数民族文论研究述评及其构建 贾一心 青海民族学院文学院

文本基础主义论 王汶成 山东大学文艺美学研究中心

比较视野中的文学理论教材编写 曾军 上海大学中文系

女性文学主体性论纲 李玲 北京语言大学人文学院

差异与反思:叶维廉的传释学理论 张晓梅 中国社会科学院文学研究所

现代寓言呼唤“阐释理论”——新时期以降汉语叙事形式转型的理论诉求

冯尚 汕头大学中文系

文革记忆与现代文艺美学的构建 孙小光 河南理工大学人文政法学院

论新时期颓废主义文学思潮流变及成因 吴家荣 安徽大学中文系

生态美学如何可能? 杨平 北京第二外国语学院跨文化研究所

新世纪·新领域—小学教育本科专业“文学概论”课程建设 钟名诚 南京晓庄学院教育学院

结构与世界 王先晋 武汉大学外语学院

试论文学的“自觉”与“不自觉” 刘惠文 河北经贸大学

■会议议题

文学理论与政治

文学理论与文学观念的变革

文学研究方法论

外国文论研究实绩

外国哲学、文论思潮与中国文学理论

古代文论现代转换的实绩

文化研究和文学理论

文学经典与文学理论教学

未来文学理论新的走向与新的形式

三十年文学理论实绩与问题

论文提要

30年来的文学理论研究的成绩、新的格局与问题 钱中文 中国社科院文学研究所

提要:近30年来,中国文学理论发生了急剧的变化。应该说,这一时期的当代中国文艺理论的研究是取得了重大的成就的,初步形成了一种具有中国特色的当代中国文学理论形态。有中国特色的当代文学理论形态,不是一种单一的形态,固定的形态,那天突然完成的形态,而是一种在中外古今背景基础之上,立足本土、内容复合、不断积累、自我充实、深入变化的动态的形态。

在改革、开放的思想指导下,人们的审美意识发生了激变;文学理论自身对于审美现代性的不断的追求与反思,主体性理论的张扬,使其较快地摆脱了附属于政治、政策的地位,获得了其自身应有的自主性。同时由于广泛地引入外国的多种文学理论思想,古代文学理论遗产的深入清理,对于现代文论传统认识的加深,使得当代文学理论获得了参照与借鉴,原来单一的文学观念受到了冲击。于是在一段至今令我们兴奋不已的百家争鸣的时间里,出现了众多文学思想、观念竞相争妍的局面。

70年代末,外国文学理论转向文化研究,80年代中期,文化研究这一思潮开始传入我国,在90年代我国市场经济全面确立、全球化思潮不断扩大的情况下,文化研究这一思潮促进了我国文学理论的文化转向,这一时期文学理论与文化研究的相互关系大致是共生共荣的关系。新世纪开始,当市场经济与全球化思潮不断激荡,外国文化、文论思潮进一步被介绍过来,日常生活审美化问题的日益显现,图像艺术、互联网艺术的兴起,文学消亡论的流播,促成了我国文学理论界的思想的变化,随后在文学理论中引发了论争,提出许多极有价值的问题,值得我们今后进一步的深入与探讨。

30年来,我国文学基础理论的研究表现了深入与多样,是取得了新的成就的,与基础理论关系向来密切的中国古典诗学、诗学范畴、现代诗学、文艺美学、审美文化研究和中国审美文化史与风尚史、中国古典文艺学、古代文学理论体系建构与文学理论批评史、周易美学思想研究、儒道佛以及禅与中国艺术精神的研究、中国文化与艺术心理、现代文学理论传统等方面的研究,以及古代文论的现代转化,都取得了长足的进步,而且其中一部分著作,是具有原创精神的。那些受到西方文化研究和文论启迪或影响而出现的文化诗学、文学人类学、比较文学理论、阐释学、叙事学、文学社会学、文学心理学、摄影文学理论、图像艺术批评、生态批评、网络文学理论、外国文论研究、文化研究与文学的跨文化研究等领域,论著丰富,其中不乏高水平的著作,思想新颖,充满生机。形成了文学理论研究的新格局。在总体上说,古代文论研究富有独创精神,而当代文学理论锐意创新,内涵丰富,自有特色。我国20世纪文学理论两头繁荣的景象,现已成为一种共识,后20多年的中国文学理论在独创性上可能逊色于前20年的文学理论,但在探讨问题的广度与深度上、学术视野的宽阔与论题涉及的广泛性方面,后20年却是胜于前20年的。当然,我们还要看到,即使在30-70年代这一阶段里,文学理论中的理论性问题,是十分丰富的,也是需要进一步研究的。

当前文学理论自然存在着许多问题。如前所说,随着市场经济体制的确立,全球化的强大影响,信息技术的日益发达,图像艺术的蓬勃兴起,日常生活的审美色彩愈益浓烈,再次使得人们的审美意识发生激变。这导致文学存在的形式发生了重大变化,文学的版图日益缩小,经典不断遭到解构,引发了种种思潮。面临这种情况,我们对于许多新的问题还不很清楚,因此必须调整思路,要努力了解文学创作中的层出不穷的新现象、研究它们提出的新问题。要加强对它们的评论,当前理论与创作、批评关系是存在着脱节、不协调现象的,我们原有的知识已不很适应,知识的更新与实现理论的创新是个大问题。西方文化、文学理论有不少理论经验,可供借鉴,近一个时期的多种外国文学理论教程,也已翻译出版,但是我们需要进行鉴别,不能照搬。我们需要立足于当今文学创作的新现象、历史发展过程中所形成的大量文学经验,以开放的、包容的心态,宏放的气度,吸纳各种新的营养,提出新问题,阐释新问题,进行理论创新。我们恐怕不能把那些虽非空穴来风但经不起文学实践与经验推敲的东西,当作我们研究问题的新思维、新思路、新起点。

文化诗学——从止步处重新起步 童庆炳 北京师范大学

提要:这三十年文艺学界发生的事情,发表的文章和著作,提出的各种各样的观点,掀起的波浪,可谓纷繁复杂、百态纷呈,不是一时说得清楚的。但用删繁就简的方法,不论其间发生的各种枝节,仅就其大的脉络,三十年的文论“由外而内”走到“由内而外”。目前的我们的似乎走到了“外部”,最具表征的就是杂语喧哗的“文化研究”。我们是否应该从这里起步,走向具有“内外结合”的“文化诗学”的道路上去呢?我们当前最要紧的事情是形成一种能实现新的综合的研究视野或方法论。这新的视野和方法论应该基于文艺学研究学术的承继,又基于对旧有成果的超越。我感到,“内部”穿越“外部”,“外部”穿越“内部”势在必行。在文学文体与历史文化之间实现互动与互构,在艺术结构与历史文化之间实现互动与互构,在抒情话语方式与历史文化之间实现互动互构,在抒情修辞与历史文化之间实现互动互构,在故事形态与历史文化之间实现互动与互构,在艺术叙事与历史文化之间实现互动与互构……,应该成为研究的课题,方法也要相应革新,这样我们就可能实现文艺学的又可能实现又一次“位移”。80年代初中期“由内而外”,我们把研究对象“位移”到文学自身的规律上面,90年代以来的“由内而外”我们把研究对象由语言“位移”到社会文化上面,那么这一次的综合应该把研究对象“位移”到艺术文本与历史文化互动与互构上面,这就是我和一些学人这些年以来一直呼唤和提倡的“双向拓展”,一直提倡的“文化诗学”了。“文化诗学”仍然是“诗学”,一方面,审美仍然是中心,语言分析不能放弃,但它不把文学封闭于审美、语言之内;另一方面,也不是又让外部政治来钳制文学,文学的某种“自治”的程度必须保持,“写什么和怎样写,只能由文艺家在艺术实践中去探索和逐步求得解决。”我们的主张是,让艺术文学与社会文化在新的基础上实现互动与互构。学术要多样,学术研究者要对话,各种不同的研究要延续,但也要着重考虑超越。因此,我觉得具有包容性的、对话性的、关注文学的整体的“文化诗学”是一个新的起点。

回顾与反思—文艺美学30 曾繁仁 山东大学文艺美学研究中心

提要:文艺美学是新时期以来由中国学者提出的、具有中国特色的新兴学科,是中国学者对世界学术发展的一个贡献。它是20世纪80年代初,在党的十一届三中全会及其“解放思想,实事求是”思想路线指引下产生的。其发展历程的第一阶段是20世纪80年代,为文艺美学的提出与初创时期;第二阶段是20世纪90年代,为文艺美学的发展建设时期;第三阶段为新世纪,为文艺美学进一步深入发展和进入国家体制内建设时期。文艺美学的学术内涵在学科界定上是20世纪80年代以来产生的一个新兴学科;在研究对象上是艺术的审美经验;在研究资源上包括中西马以及现代的理论资源、作品中表现出来的审美意识、各个艺术门类的成果以及当代大众文化资源等;其研究方法是马克思主义指导下经过改造了的审美经验现象学方法。其理论贡献是进一步推动了理论战线的“拨乱反正”;进一步推动了我国美学与文艺学的现代理论转型;进一步推动了我国美学与文艺学与世界学术接轨的步伐;为我国传统美学在现代发挥作用提供了一个平台。文艺美学在当代遇到诸多挑战,在现实生活中是大众文化的勃兴使艺术与非艺术以及美与非美界限模糊,民族文化的振兴要求文艺美学更快地走向世界,理论上则是艺术终结与文化研究理论的发展等都对文艺美学的存在及其内涵提出责疑。而其应对则是立足于理论、学科与队伍等方面的建设。

文本的文学性与接受的文学性 王先霈 华中师范大学文学院

提要:文学理论批评的基本概念,是在历史的社会的语境中“建构”起来的。参与建构的不仅有理论家,不仅有作家,还有读者。最广大的读者群,是建构文学观念不容忽视的巨大的潜在力量。文学的定义,不但会随着历史发展的时间线索而迁变,而且会随着民族、国度、地域、人群的文化单位的不同而呈现差异。文学观念必然要随着社会的发展而不断调整,但不应该造成断裂,需要寻求“文学”概念稳定性与变动性的统一。学科基本概念的建构是群体的社会性行为的结果,是历时的和共时的多种因素合力的产物。近年来,媒体传播技术的飞速进步,文学产品与文化商业的日形紧密的联结,社会大众对文学概念建构的影响力增强。我们需要把接受的文学性、审美性作为一个重点来关注。

Abstract: The basic concept of literary theory criticism is constructed by historical and social contexts. The participators of this construction are the theorists, authors, and also readers. The most extensive readership is the enormous latent force in the construction of literary concept that cannot be ignored. The definition of literature is changing with time clue of historical development, as well as the cultural unit differences in nation, country, territory and people. The literary concept should be continuously adjusted to the development of society, but should not cause break-up; it needs to find out the balance of both the stability and mobility. The construction of basic concepts of a subject is the result of the community’s social behavior. At the same time, it is the production of several diachronic and synchronic factors. In recent years, the influence of social mass enhances upon the construction of literary conception, because of the rapid development of media communication techniques, the increasing association of literary products and cultural industry. Thus, we need to pay more attention to the literary and aesthetic characteristics of acceptation.

文学与政治问题反思 陆贵山 中国人民大学

提要:新时期以来,批判极左思潮和专制政治,对推动历史变革、社会转型、加速现实生活的民主化进程,对政治文化、政治文明建设和文艺理论学科建设,都具有不可磨灭的历史性意义。但文艺与政治的关系问题,并没有终结。所改变的只是这个问题存在方式和提问方式。文艺与政治的关系问题,永远是一个真问题和新问题,总是以新的内容、结构、性质、功能和新的价值取向,继续和仍然“在场”。

在处理文艺与政治的关系问题上,注意:①确认政治的性质;②摆正政治的位置;③熟练地掌握具体问题具体分析的原则。我们的文艺是为人民服务,为社会主义服务的。文艺为人民服务,不仅要为人民的经济服务,而且包括为人民的政治服务,为社会主义服务,不仅要为人民的经济服务,而且包括为社会主义的政治服务。

政治具有不同形态。一是政治的思想形态和观念形态;一是政治的制度形态和体制形态;一是政治的生活形态和实践形态。政治生活是关系到全党全民的前途和命运的重大问题。

政治同样是一个历史的概念,是不断发展着和流变着的动态的活性结构。如果说,战争时期,文学艺术主要表现为阶级斗争的政治服务,是具有历史的合理性的;那么和平发展时期,文学艺术主要表现为稳定的、和谐的政治服务,同样是具有历史的合理性的。战争、斗争与和平、团结、稳定、和谐,都是政治的不同的表现形态,都会对文学产生不可忽视的重要影响。

对政治和文学的关系应当进行具体分析。一味地笼统地鄙视和厌恶政治的情绪是不正常和不建康的。政治上的软骨病和恐惧症是要不得的。人民的、民主的、开明的、清廉的、公正的、稳定的、和谐的,为大多数人的自由、幸福和解放服务的政治是美好的、温暖的和亲善的。好的政治与好的文学总是携手合作、双向互动的,使社会、人生和文学朝着真善美的方向发展;好的政治对坏的文学的监管、疏导和批判是正常的。只有这样,才能净化和提升社会风气,培养和提高人的思想文化素质和伦理道德情操;好的文学对坏的政治或好的政治的某些坏的方面进行揭露的抨击是应当的,对腐败的、专横的、黑暗的、龌龊的、丑恶的、非人的社会流弊和政治病毒进行正义的诉讼和诗意的裁判,是作家艺术家的天职。只有这样,才能使政治更加完善和充满爱意,以期增强整个民族的亲和力、向心力、凝聚力、感召力和战斗力;而坏的政治与坏的文学却往往是同流合污的。作家们要秉持文化操守和政治良知,推动政治与文学生态的良性发展。

我们运用马克思主义的对立统一的规律来考察政治问题。矛盾、斗争和冲突是政治;稳定、和谐和统一也是政治。这是政治内涵中不可分割的两个方面、由于一定时代的社会条件和历史任务的不同,这两个方面表现出有所侧重、有所倾斜、有所差异的存在形态。和平时期和战争年代的政治是不同的,是不能相互取代和相互延续的。改革开放以来,伴随着历史的变革、社会的转型,政治的性质、内涵、作用和功能都发生了相应的巨变。

研究文艺的政治维度和政治功能,可以有利于改善和优化当代中国的政治文化、政治文明、政治体制,政治生活,有利于改善和优化文艺的意识形态性,有利于弘扬文艺的批判精神,从而有利于增强和提高中国学术的刚性和血性、勇气和锐气,同时有利于积极回应、追寻和跟进世界范围内“文化转向”后注重和强调文学的政治属性和意识形态属性的文化潮流和学术势向。

学科范围、体系建构与书写体例——古代文论研究中诸问题的思考

党圣元 中国社科院文学所

提要:西学模式的引进导致了古代文论学科中的批评史与文学史、批评史与批评观念、批评史与文化语境的割裂。在当下,回到中国文化、中国问题原点以及成为古代文论研究学科反思中的一个关键性问题,研究目的和文学观念的改变必然影响到古代文论学科的研究范围和研究方法,在此基础上,古代文论研究中的回应西学问题、学科内在的演化问题、体系构造问题以及书写体例问题都应该重新思考。

新时期三十年中国古代文论的研究实绩及其价值取向 蒋述卓 暨南大学

提要:自1978 年以来,中国古代文论研究获得了长足的进步,取得了丰硕的成果。①思想获得大解放,研究领域得以拓展:②不断吸收新的研究方法,研究视野不断扩大:③批评史写作有了巨大发展,古代文论体系研究初见成效。④中国古代文论现代转换问题的讨论引起极大关注,古代文论的现代价值越来越受人重视。

综观三十年古代文论研究的发展道路,我们可以看到,古文论研究的总体路向是指向未来的,其价值取向是要激活中国古代文论,而不仅仅是将其作为文学遗产去研究。更重要的是要使古代文论参与中国当代文论的建构。这与当前重视中华传统文化的现代转型、重视国学等潮流是一致的。因此,在21世纪,古代文论研究虽不会形成热潮,但它的重要价值将会日益突出,尤其在当代文艺学要实现综合与超越的目标时,从现代文艺学的视野中去发现古代文论的现代价值将是一重要路径。

在后文学理论建设中需要我们思考的三个问题 王元骧 浙江大学

新时期以来我国文学理论取得很大成绩,但也有些问题值得进一步思考,我认为主要有:

一、文学理论的性质问题,长期以来由于受实用主义的影响,认为文学理论只是说明文学现象,而忽视它同时又是反思的、批判的。反思需要有一个理论前提,这就是文艺观念。因此对于文学理论来说,文学观念应该是理论的核心问题。一部文学理论著作就是一定文学观念的系统展示,它只是为文学鉴赏和文学批评确立视界,而不是衡量文学作品的框框条条。

二、文学观念的问题,新时期提出的有很多,主要是从认识论、价值论、本体论,当然还有符号论的角度来阐释的。但各自分离,没有形成一个整体。我认为认识论研究应是基础,但文艺的认识不同于科学的认识,它反映的不是“是什么”而是“应如何”。“应如何”是一个理论的尺度,在当今价值多元和价值迷失的时代,要正确判断怎样的选择才是合理的,就需要进入到对文学本体论的研究,惟此才能真实地说明文学的本真存在,摆脱主观随意性,而建立我们看待文学的客观真理性的标准,克服以往仅从单维视角研究所不能达到的认识的科学性和完整性。

三、因此,在方法上,我们也应该走向综合,除了客观的上述三论的综合之外,从微的方向,还可以静态的把作品分为普遍的(意识形态)、特殊的(审美的反映)和个别的(语言的媒介)三个层次,动态的把文学活动分为创作—作品—阅读这样现实作家创作目的的三个环节来理解。惟此才能达到对文学问题作出全面的把握。

文学经典、世界文学及文学史的重新书写 王宁 清华大学外语系

提要:本文通过对国际学术界关于文学经典问题讨论的回顾分别从新历史主义、后殖民主义、文化研究以及修正主义等理论视角阐述了西方文学史上经典的构成以及隐于其背后的权力关系。全文共分为三个部分。在第一部分中,作者认为,经典的形成是由诸多因素构成的,它在很大程度上受制于特定的批评话语、权力机构及其他一些人为的因素。由于“欧洲中心主义”和其后的“西方中心主义”意识的作祟,包括中国文学在内的许多东方文学的优秀作品长期以来被排斥在“西方中心主义”框架内的世界文学经典之外,因而从跨文化的视野对既定的经典进行质疑乃至重构是完全可能的,这也是比较文学、文化研究和文学理论研究者在今后相当长的时期内一个主要的研究课题。第二部分着重讨论了世界文学这一概念的产生以及演变的历程。作者认为,全球化时代的文学研究从一个新的视角使得重绘制世界文学地图并重构世界文学经典具有了可行性。此外,作者还试图在文化研究的去经典化的尝试中发现其隐匿着的经典重构之意义。第三部分则提出一种在世界文学背景下以语言为疆界重写汉语文学史的策略。作者认为,这是使得当今的中国文学研究者走出国门进入到国际性的理论争鸣中的一条可能的途径。这种重写汉语文学史的尝试将分别通过两类学者的通力合作而完成:西方汉学家用英文撰写的汉语文学史和中国本土学者用中文撰写的汉语文学史。前者是使得以中国文学为主体的汉语文学在一个更广大的全球化语境下为更多的人所知的必经之路,而后者则试图在一个全球性的跨文化语境下推进汉语在全世界的普及,最终使得汉语成为仅次于英语的世界第二大语言,而汉语文学的重要地位也就不言而喻了。

Abstract: The present paper, through a retrospective survey of the international debate on canon formation, illustrates, from the perspectives of New Historicism, postcolonialism, cultural studies and revisionism, the formation of Western canon behind which various power relations function. The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, the author holds that canon formation is decided by many factors, among which are to a large extent the given critical discourse, power institution and other artificial factors. Due to the lasting influence of Eurocentrism and West-centrism, a lot of excellent works of Oriental literature, including those of Chinese literature, were long excluded from world literary canon. But actually it is quite possible to question the established canon so as to re-canonize it in a broad cross-cultural context. This is one of the major theoretic topics for comparatists, cultural studies scholars as well as literary theorists in their present and future research. The second part particularly emphasizes the formation of the concept world literature and its evolution and development. The author thinks it possible and necessary to remap, from a new perspective, world literature in the current age of globalization. In this aspect, cultural studies could contribute a great deal to the canonization in the process of de-canonization. The third part puts forward a strategy of rewriting a new literary history in the broad context of world literature. To the author, this is a necessary step through which contemporary Chinese literature could get out of our country moving toward the world. This sort of rewriting a new literary history in Chinese could be realized by the joint efforts of two groups of scholars: that written by Western sinologists in English and that written by domestic scholars in Chinese. The former is aimed to make Chinese literature have more audience in the world, and the latter is aimed to promote Chinese in a global and cross-cultural context, in an attempt to enable Chinese to become the second biggest language only next to English. In this way, the significance of the literature in Chinese will be all the more conspicuous.

比较文学变异学学术背景与理论构想 曹顺庆 张雨 四川大学

提要:比较文学变异学的提出是中国比较文学学科理论在基本观念层面上一个革命性的变革,本文主要从三个方面对此展开论述。首先,说明变异学理论的提出是基于解决译介学与形象学归属不当,整合比较文学学科理论的考虑。其次,论文从对当今世界两大学术前沿问题,即解构思潮与跨文明研究的考察入手,总结出当前学术研究的核心问题是差异性问题,并认为比较文学文学变异学是世界学术前沿思潮催发出的新的比较文学学科理论生长点。最后,本文把异质性作为比较文学学科的在同一性之外的另一可比性基础提出来,认为比较文学变异学的研究对象是文学流传过程中的变异现象与跨文明的文学研究中的异质性因素,借助变异学理论比较文学研究可以在求同与辨异的基础之上,达到对文学交流中所有因素的全面考虑。

Abstract: The proposal of The Theory of Variation of Comparative Literature is a revolutionary change in the basic notion of comparative literature study in China. The present paper has tried to expound from the following three points: firstly, we tried to solve the misclassification of medio-translatology and imagology by integrating the disciplinary theories of comparative literature; secondly, we tried to sum up the core issue of academic research, differentiation, by reviewing deconstructionism and cross-civilization study; finally, the present paper took heterogeneity as another comparability out of analogue and put forward that variation theory is to concentrate on heterogeneity elements in literary circulation and study the variation phenomenon. In this way we may get a holistic consideration of all the elements in literary exchange on the basis of similarity and differentiation.

文艺学的现代性 高楠 辽宁大学

提要:当下,文艺学关注与研究的问题前所未有地广泛而且错杂。学科既有格局被严重搅乱,一些文艺学研究者对这个学科是否还有自己的理论边界或格局产生质疑。而同时,各类问题的研究又很难聚焦并坚持,提出问题的敏度与求解问题的深度形成强烈反差。这种情况与文艺学正经历巨大的历史性变化分不开,这变化的历史性便是亟待深入探索的文艺学的现代性。

一、现代性问题在后现代话语中突出为话题,后现代话语相对于现代性问题被设定,两者关系在精神活动层面形成,并在同一层面的相互作用中各自分明。现代性是历史实存,后现代是关于实存的话语。现代性问题在后现代话语中反思并继续历史性地展开。这是探索文艺学现代性问题,取之于西方的现代——后现代话语背景。

二、中国现代性不同于西方,这里有文化传统与文化发展基因的差异。尽管中国现代性的展开与西方的殖民侵略相关,但这仍是中国现代性,西方的作用只是他者推助。学术界包括文艺学界的一些学者受后殖民理论影响提出的“中华性/现代性”二元对立模式,是没有认识到中国现代性的自体性实质,由此得出的中国现代性即西方殖民性的实质性结论没有道理。

三、与文艺学发展密切相关的中国现代性在各重要方面均体现出不容取代的独特性。中国现代性不是启蒙于西方式的科技发展而是启蒙于社会人伦关系的道德理性,前者是始于真的启蒙及认识真的人的启蒙,后者是始于善的启蒙及变革人伦关系的启蒙。再则,西方现代性启蒙要点是人的创造性的开启与激发,中国现代性则是世界意识与民族生存意识的开启与激发。市场经济繁荣在西方不是现代性标志,在中国则是现代性的突出标志。碎片化,是西方现代性的一个伴生性特征,在中国,则是碎片化的整体性持存,是整体性的碎片活跃。西人的个性中心化,构成西方社会学的历史难题,这个难题在中国被人伦传统所节制,个性因被肯定而活跃,又因被传统地置于人伦关系而约束。在时下中国现代性中,完善着个性活跃的人伦整体性。

四、构成文艺学建构的现代性根据主要有四个方面:1、民族主体性。它来于文艺学面向世界建构的民族意识,它体现为全球视点、自体的开放性建构意识。2、理论的个性言说。文艺学理论言说者的个性不是说者所说道理的他者,个性是说理的根据、构成与形态。文艺学个性之说或文艺学理论个性色彩的被接纳,是现代性构入的结果。文艺学在个性理论言说中多元地趋向真理,并使理论在现实中敞开。3、边缘化组合。文艺学建构的边缘与中心之说是空间性的更是时间性的,它是时间中的序位滑动。中心地位被取代与中心地位作为位置的自身消失,构成边缘化的时间性理解。边缘性与中国现代性的整体性碎片活跃相关。4、西学的非语境转用。任何话语都是语境性的,理论话语也不例外,语境不祥或错置导致话语语义的混乱。文艺学建构中,大量引入的西方理论资源,在引入中淡化或失去其实对性语境。这种情况导致文艺学建构的资源性混乱。

后殖民批评的吊诡 张宽 美国乔治梅森大学现代与古典语文系

提要:上世纪九十年代中期作者在读书杂志上引介后殖民批评的文字曾引起过国内学界的论争。本论文回顾相关后殖民批评文字写作的缘起,概述并点评由此而起的各方争论的要点,并回应中国的后殖民批评十多年来所受到的质疑。无论在西方还是在中国,后殖民批评都处于一种两难的境地,其立足点难免尴尬,其论述充斥吊诡。本论文侧重探讨中西方后殖民批评吊诡性产生的背景及其原由。

The author of this essay was one of the major persons who introduced Edward Said’s postcolonial criticism to the Chinese readership through the influential Dushu magazine in the Mid-Nineties of the last century. This essay evokes the circumstances under which those relevant articles were written, summarizes the points involved parties made during the ensuing debate and responds to the challenges the Chinese postcolonial criticism practitioners received. In both the western and Chinese academia, a certain kind of paradoxical nature was imbedded within the discourses of the postcolonial criticism and thus unavoidably put its practitioners in an undesirable predicament.

西方左翼知识界的危机——管窥当代美国左翼文化理论与批评

刘康 美国杜克大学

提要:美国左翼文化理论与批评在上世纪80-90年代经历了一个高峰。杰姆逊的马克思主义文艺理论、萨依德的东方主义批判以及后现代主义、后殖民主义、女性主义理论与批评在美国人文学术界掀起了左翼知识界反思西方现代性、批判当代资本主义文化的浪潮。这股左翼思潮来源于60-70年代西欧(特别是法国)的激进左翼社会与思想运动,在美国80年代的学术界产生广泛影响,并在全世界广为传播,中国也感受到了强烈的冲击。在今天的中国知识界尤其是文艺理论界,西方后学和新马克思主义理论的影响深远。西方左翼文化理论对西方现代性的文化维度做了深刻的剖析与批判,推动了西方知识界对现代性的反思以及对当代西方资本主义文化现象的认识。然而左翼文化理论与批评在批判资本主义文化商品化的同时仍然无法避免学术理论自身被商品化的怪圈,并且日益走上精英主义的道路,跟当代社会实践与大众越来越脱节。在右翼文化政治越来越支配西方社会的氛围中,西方左翼知识界的否定性立场也日益失去具体实际的对象而趋向空洞化,缺乏社会变革的参与感,没有任何建设性方案,从而使左翼文化批评越来越边缘化,陷入深刻的危机之中。本文就美国学院派左翼近年来的一些动向作简略分析,以管窥西方左翼知识界的历史性危机,并提出这一危机对中国学术界的可能影响与启示。

开放的民族主义——论中国当代文学批评之立场 胡亚敏 华中师范大学文学院

提要:中国当代文学批评的建立,是以对西方20世纪文学批评理论和方法的引进为基础的。如何看待西方文学批评在中国的传播,人们有不同的看法。本文在探讨中国当代文学批评与西方的关系中明确提出“开放的民族主义”的立场。论文首先重新诠释了“民族”的概念,全球化语境下的民族具有相关性,民族性中蕴涵着普遍性,民族的发展在于否定和更新。接下来阐述了开放的民族主义的基本要义,即坚持民族差异性和有容乃大的原则。中国当代文学批评在接受西方文学批评时,一方面需要充分了解和把握其对象作为异质文化语境和经验的产物的复杂性,同时也要看到西方文学批评对于中国当代文学批评的革命性影响。当代文学批评的策略乃中和之美,以宽容的精神、多元的价值观、对话的姿态倾听别的民族关于文学批评的声音。中国未来的文学批评应是一种善于吸收不同文化优势,能够研究和解释本土文学问题,体现本民族深层意识和具有民族个性的文学批评。

Abstract: The establishment of modern Chinese literary criticism is based on the introduction of 20th century western literary criticism theories and methods, whereas people hold different views as to how to regard the spread of western literary criticism in China . The paper proposes the stand of “open nationalism” when discussing about the relations between modern Chinese literary criticism and western literary criticism. It starts with redefining the concept of “nation”, and argues that it is characterized by relativity under the context of globalization. Nationality is closely related to universality, and the development of the nation lies in negation and regeneration. Then it elaborates on the basic meaning of open nationalism, that is, acknowledging national differences and sticking to the principle of tolerance. While introducing western literary criticism into Chinese context, we should fully understand its complexity as the product of heterogeneous cultural context and experience, and be aware of its revolutionary influence upon Chinese literary criticism. Modern Chinese literary criticism adopts neutralization and harmony as its strategy, which advocates listening to different voices of others with tolerant mind, multiple value standards and conversational stance. Chinese literary criticism in the future should learn from the advantages of different cultures and apply them to the study and examination of national literary issues, highlighting its national awareness and national characters.

从文学理论转向理论 周宪 南京大学中文系

提要:从文艺学到文学理论,称谓的变化使得这一学科逐渐边界明晰,也反映出这一学科越来越体制化的进程。今天,在大学中文系里它的二级学科位置,重点学科、博士点和硕士点的建立,本科课程的开设,教材和读本的出版,教研室或专业教师共同体,以及专业学会、专业杂志和专业评估、精品课程等一系列体制化的活动,必然使文学理论趋向于专业共同体内部的书斋切磋型或课堂传授型的知识。30年的发展,我们已经清楚地看到了文学理论转向体制化的历史进程。其后果是复杂的。从积极的层面上说,文学理论摆脱了曾经的“政治婢女”的尴尬境地,成为一门相对独立的知识系统。从消极层面上说,文学理论的归位也在一定程度上隐藏着脱离是广阔的社会实践的可能性,进而转向一种少数人小叙事专业性话语,失去了它本身所具有的社会参与性和道德关怀。

今天,体制化围绕着文化资本或象征资本的资源争夺或再分配展开。不同的学校、不同的研究取向和不同代际的学者们,在文学理论场内为争夺资源展开了殊死搏斗。而文学理论越发体制化的进程,同时也是作为一门“学科”越发具有“规训”特性的过程。知识在一个商业化和体制化的社会中,既呈现为某种时尚(诸如种种新潮理论和理论明星的生产),也可以转化为某种形式的商品(出版物或演讲等),还可以是某种标准化的知识生产(多年来文学理论教材内容重新排列组合就是一例)。反叛和越轨的冲动往往在体制化的桎梏编的越来越困难。于是,从文学理论向理论的转变就成为必然。

文学理论的反向冲动导致了转向理论。理论与文学理论有所不同,按照杰姆逊说法,一代人以前强调的是各自不同的技术性话语,比如哲学不同于社会学;而今天却出现了一种单一的话语,它涵盖了各门学科。这就叫作理论。或许我们可以用比较通俗的语言来描述理论的特性,它就是那种跨学科的、多学科的或超学科的话语形态。卡勒具体描述了这一转变:“1960年以来所发生的事实:从事文学研究的人已经开始研究文学研究领域之外的著作,因为那些著作在语言、思想、历史或文化各个方面所做的分析都为文本和文化问题提供了更新、更有说服力的解释。这种意义上的理论已经不是一套为文学研究而设的方法,而是一系列没有边界的、评说天下万物的各种著作,从哲学殿堂学术性最强的问题到人们以不断变化的方法评说和思考身体问题,无所不包。”

三十年中国当代文学理论的发展历程,我们也可以看到一个从文学理论转向理论的清晰轨迹。晚近关于文化研究和文学研究的论争,不妨视作文学理论与理论之间紧张关系的某种表征。或许我们可以形象地描述文学理论与理论之间动力学特征:文学理论是某种向心运动的范式,而理论则是某种离心运动的范式。

从文学理论到理论,在我看来还有一个学科越界的观念变迁。文学理论是传统上所说的“人文学科”(humanities)的一个部分,而理论则可以看作是“人的学科”(human sciences)的一个组成部分。两者之间有着不同的内涵差异,这也清楚地标示出文学理论与理论的不同个性。顺便说一句,国内一些人把human sciences翻译成“人文学科”显然欠妥了。这个概念从狄尔泰到福柯,有其区别于传统“人文学科”的意义。这也是我们从文学理论到理论的一个需要关注的地方。

重新召唤诗意启蒙——电子媒介主导年代的文学教育 王一川 北京师范大学文学院

提要:本文尝试考察电子媒介主导年代的文学教育问题。认为文学教育向来借助语言艺术对个体的熏陶去传承与语言文字紧密结合的人生价值与审美趣味,其主要特点在于以纸质媒介为核心媒介,采取口授与个体自主阅读结合的形式进行。随着以互联网和移动网络为核心的电子媒介的日益发达和普及,文学教育方式已经和正在发生深刻的转型。电子媒介主导时代文学教育的总体趋向在于娱乐化,即以电子媒介主导的大众娱乐已经取代以往的以纸质媒介主导的诗意启蒙。第一,从核心媒介看,不再是过去的纸质媒介主导而是电媒主导,即以电子媒介为文学教育的主导型媒介,以及从电子媒介返销纸质媒介。第二,从主导目标看,不再是朝向过去的诗意启蒙高标而是转向大众娱乐低标,即从提高为主转向普及为主,注重以诗意的和审美的途径去迎合与满足大众的打发其剩余或休闲时光的需要。第三,从具体教学方式看,不再是以启发式为主而是以通俗化和有趣为主。“五四”以来形成的现代性诗意启蒙精神难免遭遇解构的危机。

我仍坚持十年前提出的“从诗意启蒙到异趣沟通”的转型判断,但从来没有像今天这样清醒地认识到,当前的异趣沟通使命已经和正在变得前所未有地艰难,异趣沟通正被变形为机趣共娱,即扭曲成多种机巧、低俗或偶然的感官趣味的共同娱乐,这使得原来有关多种异质审美趣味之间平等汇通情境的设想面临被打折扣的危机,至少仅仅是在低水平上徘徊。

要改变这种危机局面而实现真正的异趣沟通,需要重新召唤诗意启蒙的幽灵,在今天条件下重新创造有利于诗意生成并在这种诗意生成中实现理性提升目标的情境,再通过这种诗意启蒙去实现异趣沟通。这就需要重新回到文学文本的语言阅读中。重新唤回诗意启蒙的幽灵,意味着一是回到纸媒,即重塑以纸质媒介为核心的汉语媒介的权威,让读者带着个人生存体验和生存需求去手捧书本,寻求可能的人生启迪。二是细读文本,以严肃的姿态去冷静而细致地阅读汉语小说或汉译小说文本,从语词缝隙里解读其可能的丰富意义。三是激发感兴,即当个体的生存境遇同文本的世界在某个节点上实现视界融合,那么人生的意义就可能在这阅读的瞬间生成。四是品味余兴,即反复品评和体味文本中蕴藉的深长的余意绵绵的感兴。重新召唤诗意启蒙,不是要否定现在而回到过去,而只是要在承认现在的合理性的前提下去救治现在的症候,以便使现在重新成为具有健康机体的现在。文学教育的使命绝不只是知识传承或信息传播,而更是新的生存情境中人生原初意义的生成与符号化塑形。

新时期美学研究的问题域的转换 张玉能 华中师范大学文学院

提要:回顾新时期30年来的许多论争,我们可以发现新时期的美学研究的问题域产生了极大的转换,由20世纪5060年代的传统问题转向了西方现代美学的问题,主要表现在:由形而上的问题转向了形而下的问题,由一元化问题转向了多元化的问题,由抽象思辨的问题转向了生活世界的问题等等。这些应该说是中国美学发展的全球化趋势使然,但是,中国当代美学的问题域还没有显示出本土化的趋向,因此,虽然新时期美学研究及其争论成绩斐然,但是,自主创新的成果还并不多见。新世纪的美学研究应该转向中国当代的现实生活的问题,以构建中国特色的美学。新实践美学的努力方向就是如此。

Abstract: We could find that the problem’s field of aesthetic research has produced great transform if review many contests of 30 years of The New Era. That is from traditional problem of 50-60 age 0f 20th century to Western modern aesthetic problem and shows mainly from metaphysical problem to non-metaphysical problem, from monistic problem to pluralistic problem, from abstract, thinking problem to life world problem etc. These should be said that the trend of globalization of aesthetics of China causes it. But the problem’s field of contemporary aesthetics of China still has not show the trend of localization. So though the aesthetic research and its disputes have brilliant achievement, we have little independent creative fruit on it. The aesthetic research of new century should transform Chinese contemporary problem of real life, so that construct Chinese characteristic aesthetics. That is the struggling direction of The New Practice Aesthetics.

文学理论的学理性与寄生性 余虹 中国人民大学文学院

提要:文学理论的学理性与寄生性有内在关联。文学理论多学科与多主义的寄生性使其具有开放性与多元性的品格,同时也使它成为一个充满矛盾、冲突与论争的战场。文学理论的主义内冲突是可以兼容的、主义外冲突则不可兼容,不管哪种冲突都是文学理论知识生产的基本方式与扩展自身理论空间的基本方式。文学理论知识生产的机制与知识秩序的建立就在主义内和主义外的矛盾运动之中,正是对这一矛盾运动的盲视使中国文艺学知识建构的学理化进程受到根本阻碍。

俄罗斯文艺学历史研究和结构研究的结构 程正民 北京师范大学文艺学研究中心

提要:俄罗斯文艺学的历史主义传统是十分丰富和深厚的,是不断发展和创新的。其中包括俄国革命民主主义美学的历史主义传统,俄国文艺学经验学派的历史主义传统,俄国马克思主义文艺学的历史主义传统。

到了20世纪,俄国文艺学的历史主义传统面临形式主义和结构主义的挑战。面对挑战,俄罗斯文艺学派依然坚持历史主义传统,俄罗斯文艺学新出现的结构研究也没有抛弃历史主义传统,它们十分重视吸收历史主义的养分以克服自身的不足,并最终达到结构研究和历史研究的结合。文艺学界著名的结构符号学家洛特曼声称:“结构主义并非历史主义的敌人。”老一辈文艺学家利哈乔夫也指出:“重要的是在俄罗斯的结构主义研究系统中越来越流露出历史主义的态度,它归根结底将结构主义变成非结构主义,同时又允许从中吸收最好的因素。”

论文将通过三个个案,具体分析俄罗斯文艺学如何实现历史研究和结构研究的结合。普洛普:结构研究和历史研究;洛特曼:艺术文本和非艺术文本;巴赫金:体裁诗学和历史诗学。

从俄罗斯文论发展的历史可以看出,历史主义是俄罗斯文艺学的重要传统,而历史主义和结构主义的结合,历史研究和结构研究的结合又是俄罗斯文艺学发展的重要趋势。这种结合最终将形成内部研究和外部研究相贯通,形式研究和内容研究相融合,共时研究和历时研究相渗透的研究格局,为文艺学研究开拓新的理论空间。

文学性:百年文学理论的现代性追求 姚文放 扬州大学文学院

提要:俄国形式主义文论以对于文学理论科学化的追求为百年文学理论确立了现代性风标,百年文学理论产生了许多学派,包括英美新批评、结构主义、符号学、解构主义等,它们大多与俄国形式主义有着很深的渊源关系,特别是俄国形式主义提出的“文学性”问题,为各家各派凝定了现代性的魂魄,而百年文学理论的内在理路,也受到俄国形式主义现代性内涵的规定。

文学理论研究的知识状况——以文化批评为视角的反思 孙文宪 华中师范大学文学院

提要:文化批评其实是在与传统文学理论研究有别的另一种知识语境中、以另一种知识话语来理解和解释文学的。然而中国当代文学理论研究却忽略了理论“问题意识”的演变与知识状况之间的存在的这种对应关系,在对各种西方文学理论的介绍和阐释中,往往因为偏重“方法”或“模式”而忽略了理论生成的知识语境,忽略了理论研究与知识结构的内在关联。从这个角度看,文化批评对文学研究的冲击集中体现在它对国内文学理论研究知识状况的质疑,文学理论知识结构的更新已是迫在眉睫的问题。我们的理论研究不必也不会都在文化论域中展开,但是却不能不思考文化批评的知识结构对拓展文学理论研究视野的意义。

Abstract: Cultural criticism understands and explains literature according to another knowledge context and another knowledge discourse different from those of the traditional literary theories. Yet, in China, the contemporary literary theory ignores the relation between the evolution of academic “problem consciousness” and knowledge condition. In the introduction and explanation of all kinds of western literary theories, the scholars usually pay more attention to “methods” and “modes” than knowledge context in which theory creates as well as inner connection of theory research and knowledge framework. Viewed from this perspective, the impact of cultural criticism upon literary research concentrates on questioning knowledge condition of domestic literary theory research: it is an extremely urgent problem to renovate the knowledge framework of literary theory. Our theory research unnecessarily and can’t develop in cultural domain, but we have to reflect the meaning of the knowledge framework of cultural criticism in order to broaden the horizon of literary theory research.

跨文化视野中文学研究异质性的三个层次 张荣翼 武汉大学文学院

提要:当今我们处于一个全球化的时代,在此时代中,文学研究的方法、范式都带有了国际通行的律则,对各种不同文学的研讨都不可避免地要纳入到当今这种全球化的文化背景中进行参照,那么,在这样的研究语境中,有必要确立和加强跨文化视野中的文化交流意识,明确不同文化语境中文学的异质性。本篇文章把这种异质性归纳了三个方面:差异层次、梯级层次和对话层次。

中西文论异质性比较研究——新批评在中国的命运 代迅 西南大学文学院

提要:新批评是现代英语学界文学研究中影响最大的一个理论流派,持续时间也最长。新批评在中国的传播时间早,时间跨度长,其主要代表人物瑞恰兹、燕卜荪等人曾长期在中国讲学,但是新批评对中国文论界的影响始终不大。英美新批评与作为中国现代主流文论的马克思主义文论,在意识形态上存在着难以逾越的深深鸿沟,在艺术理论上也有着鲜明的异质性。中国古代文论文论带有强烈的印象式批评特点,推崇“知人论世”,主张“以意逆志”,在思想内容的尚质尚用和在艺术形式的尚质尚简,而新批评则带有强烈的形式主义和科学主义倾向,反对“意图谬误”和“动情谬误”,尽管新批评与中国古代文艺思想之间也有着某种程度上的相通之处,但是两者之间这些强烈和根本的异质性,以及现代中国诸多社会历史条件的制约,决定了新批评在中国必然遭遇到被冷落和忽视的地位,始终处于边缘化的境遇。

Abstract: New criticism was the dominant trend in English and American literary criticism of twentieth century, of longest duration. New criticism was earlier diffused in China and longer lasted. Its prominent figures William Empson and I. A. Richards had taught in China for a long time. It has had little influence upon Chinese literary theory. There is a huge gulf in ideology and artistic theory between Anglo-American new criticism and Marxism literary theory as dominant trend in modern China. Chinese ancient literary theory insisted on impressionistic, biographical, historical and reader response criticism, focused attention on utility and simplicity of literary works. Contrarily, new criticism is distinctly formalist in character. It stresses the use of scientific method to explain the work, argues strongly against intentional fallacy and affective fallacy. There are a few points of similarity between new criticism and Chinese ancient literary theory. New criticism is doomed to the fringe of Chinese discourse because it is great different and heterogeneous from Chinese ancient literary theory.

文艺理论要面向当代,关注问题——对当下文艺理论研究现状的一些思考

马驰 上海社会科学院思想文化研究中心

提要:中国近30年的文论研究突破了以往机械反映论、庸俗唯物主义等的理论桎梏,大胆吸收国外的思想成果,取得了长足的进步。但也暴露出一些自身亟待解决的问题:对社会思潮的关注过于对文本的重视;对新潮理论的追逐过于对基本问题的研究;对西方文艺思潮的引进过于对中国现实问题的关怀。

Abstract: The study of literary theory in China around latest 30 years, freed from the shackle of mechanical theory of reflection and vulgar materialism, absorbing the international fresh thoughts, have been making great progress. Some problems, however, emerged and need solving in this developing process, such as thinking too much of social trends of thought than the literature text itself, following new thoughts much more than researching the basic problems, and introducing trends of western literary thoughts over considering realistic problems in China.

新时期文论转型发展之反思 赖大仁 江西师范大学当代形态文艺学研究中心、文学院

提要:反思新时期文论的变革发展,大致经历了三个主要发展阶段,近期却似乎陷入了空前的理论困惑与焦虑之中。这不得不促使我们回到理论原点上重新思考:文学理论存在的理由和根据何在?当代文论创新发展的依据与可能性何在?首先,文学理论的基本功能和价值在于:尽可能对文学现象做出合乎实际的认识和解释,努力引导文学活动成为一种更为自由自觉的活动,更加有利于人的解放和自由全面发展,有利于人类社会的文明进步。对于历史上的文论学说,不宜低估其意义价值,仅仅当作过时的“知识”看待,其理论形态中所包含的思想方法和理论智慧,至今仍具有极大的启示意义。其次,当代文论的创新发展,主要有两个方面:一是追踪各种新的文学现象进行研究阐释。但当代文论是否非要追踪最新潮流,如当今文学的网络化、图像化、市场化、大众化、消费化等等,这本身就值得怀疑。面对当今文学形态的种种新奇变异与“泛化”现象,我们关注和研究的重心,理应是那些文学中心地带的现象,是那些真正关乎审美情感与人生人性的具有重要文学意义价值的现象。二是追随国外各种新潮理论学说加以译介阐发。不过在近一时期的后现代文化转向中,文论边界不断拓展乃至于不断“越界”,文学研究愈来愈成为一种文化学、社会学研究,文论自身的基本问题反倒迷失或被悬置了,甚至导致自我消解陷入深重危机。当代文论的创新发展有必要引入各种有价值的理论资源,这并不意味着只看到当下的新潮理论。而且对当代文学问题的探讨,也并不意味着追逐最新或最时尚的话题,还是需要从当今时代要求出发,以现代性精神和创新性观念重新认识探讨。此外,当代文论在学科化的转型发展过程中,过于偏重把文学理论当作知识形态对待,而忽视了它作为一种诗性智慧的特性,文学研究者更偏向于追求做“专家”而不是做“学者”,这种现象也同样是值得关注和反思的。

AbstractAfter undergoing three stages in the New Period, Chinese literary theory has recently run into an unprecedented theoretical perplexity which leads us to rethink why literary theory should exists and what possibilities exist for its development. First of all, the basic function and value of literary theory is to formulate a proper understanding and explanation of literary phenomena. In doing so and self-conscious literary activity will be promoted, and one will therefore contribute to the emancipation and free integrated development of the whole human being and the progress of social civilization. It would be inappropriate to underestimate the value of traditional literary theories, taking them as outdated knowledge. The way of thinking included in the theory is still enlightening because it shows the possibilities. Secondly, there are two aspects of the development of contemporary literary theory. One is studying and elucidating the latest literary phenomena. It is doubtful that there is any necessity to trace the newest literature trend, such as networking, marketing, popularizing and consuming. As the border of literature becoming wider and wider, one should pay more attention to those literature works that most concern aesthetic emotion and human nature. The other is translating and explaining the latest western literary theories. Recently the border of literary theory has been crossed frequently. The study of literature is becoming more and more like the study of culture or sociology. The basic questions of literary theory are seldom mentioned. That may lead to the death of theory itself. It is necessary to introduce various valuable theories in developing contemporary literary theory. But this does not mean only the latest one is valuable. The same applies to discussing contemporary literature. It is reasonable to discuss these topics with a modern spirit and innovative ideas in order to keep the pace with the times. In addition, as theory becoming institutionalized, it has been treated as knowledge rather than Poetic Wisdom. Literature researchers are more willing to be a specialists rather than scholars. This situation certainly deserves further study.

审美是一种表达——重申艺术语义学的一种路径 徐岱 浙江大学传媒与国际文化学院

提要:所以在美学领域理,“艺术与宣传”的命题永远有其重要的意义。当代美学要想继续叩问审美奥秘、探寻艺术精神的实质,仍然无法对它回避。对于中国批评界,“艺术与宣传”的话题曾经受到广泛的关注。鲁迅就美国作家辛克来儿“一切文艺是宣传”的观点发表了自己的见解。他一方面表示接受这话,认为任何作品“一写出,就有宣传的可能。”但同时也表示:一切文艺术固是宣传,而一切宣传却并非全是文艺。因为“革命之所以于口号、标语、布告、电报、教科书……之外,要用文艺者,就因为它是文艺。”

但仍然需要继续澄清一个问题:艺术与宣传的区分究竟是什么?作为宣传的艺术作品与借艺术作宣传的东西,二者到底有何不同?无论如何,表现方式也即“怎么说”,对于我们区分“作为艺术的宣传”和“借艺术来作宣传”有着应有的位置。但归根到底,决定一首诗究竟是否货真价实的“诗”的,仍然是其所表达的内容本身,必须是一种能够被以诗化的方式来处置和对待的诗性的东西。所以即便是形式主义文论家什克洛夫斯基也同样认为,艺术之所以是艺术,正因为它能看到不会成为过去的真理。

艺术实践在这个意义上体现出一种“元政治”的关怀,这就是对以个体存在为本色的人类生命的关爱与尊重。“诗人”也是在这个意义上成为世间未经公认的“立法者”。契柯夫认为:大作家和大艺术家只应当在必须避开政治的限度上过问政治。这种“非政治的政治”也就是对“非人”化倾向的坚决抵制。用利奥塔的话说:除了对这个非人的抵抗以外,所谓的“政治”还剩下什么呢?为了进行这种抵抗,除了每个人和另一个非人共同的债务之外,还剩下什么呢?事实上这既是现代主义艺术的主题,同样也是后现代艺术的主题。因为社会公正是人类文明的前提和保障。

只有在这样的意义上,我们才能更好地厘清“作为艺术的宣传”和“名为艺术的宣传”的关系。前者虽然有宣传的内容但却是名符其实的艺术,后者尽管看似艺术但却是货真价实的宣传。从审美语义学视野看,对二者的区别具有决定性意义的,主要不在于所采用的“表达”方式,而是所“宣传”的信息。就像毕加索的名作《格尔尼卡》尽管明确是对西班牙法西斯政权对格尔尼卡这座小城的狂轰滥炸的抗议,但仍然是一幅优秀的绘画作品,因为它不仅触及我们的大脑,还有更深一层的心灵。

毫无疑问,“艺术”从来不是一个简单的所指,现实生活中有各种各样的艺术家,也存在大相径庭的艺术品。但是我们决不能想当然地以为,凡是挂着羊头的店铺就一定不卖狗肉。诚然,就像集市是戏剧的发源地之一,人类艺术实践永远留有一个通俗文化的胎记。但这并不表明它没有一个具有约束力的边际。只要我们能够将那些徒有艺术形式的艺术赝品所遮蔽的东西揭示出来,那么美的中立性就表现为一种欺骗,它们作为艺术赝品的真相就会大白。

AbstractArt is not a simple signified.In our life,there are different kinds of artists,so are works of art. But we should not believe that the shop hanged the sheephead will not sell dog. It is so doubtful that these Art to be the real Art.Of course like the market is one of the origin of Opera,the Human Art practice has the birthmark of popular culture.But that is not say that Art has no restrictive boundary. Just like Herbert Marcuse said that if we can reveal the things from the Art which only has form,the neutrality of the beauty will be the cheat,and this Art is just a fakement will be known to all.

So in the field of aesthetic,the proposition “art and propagandism” has important signification forever. If the Aesthetics in the contemporary want to realize the essential of The spirit of Art,this problem should not be neglect.lu Xun had ever expressed his idea on the view of “ All of the Art are propagandism”made by American writer Sinclair .On one side,he accepted this idea,but on the other side,he said that all of the Art are propagandism,but all of the propagandism are not the Art.

But we should also make sure another question:what is the distinction between Art and propagandism?Which factor distinct “the propagandism to be Art”and “the propagandism in the name of Art”?In any case,what determines a “poem” to be the real poem is ofcourse the content itself.It must be the one to be treated as poem.So the Russian literary theorist Shklovsky said that Why Art is Art is because it can see the truth that will be forever.

From this way ,The Art practice reveal the solicitude of “metapolitics”,it’s respect and care for the single life.From this mean,the “poet”is “the legislator” of the world. Chekhov said,the Great writer and artist should be care for politics on the condition of avoiding politics.That non-politics politics is a protest for the “non-human”.Loyotard said except the protest of “non-human”,what will remain?except for the debt of everyone and non-human,what will remain?It is the subject of modern art,it is also the subject of post-modern Art.Because Justice is the safeguard of the civilization.

Only in that mean,we can clarify the relation between “the propagandism to be Art”and “the propagandism in the name of Art”.Although the first one has the content of propagandism,it is a real Art.Although the later one seems like the Art,it is propagandism in fact.From the view of semasiology of Art,it is important to district each other.The more important one is the message of “propagandism ”,not the style of “expression”.Just like Picasso’s “Guernica”is ofcourse the protest for the bombing from Nazi,but it is also an wonderful painting.Because it not only touchs our mind,but also made our heart moved.

作为方法的乌托邦,或未来的用途 弗雷德里克·詹姆逊 美国杜克大学

通常我们认为乌托邦是个地方,也可以说是看似一个地方而并非一个地方。一个地方怎么能成为一种方法呢?这就是我想让你们面对的问题,而且可能有一个容易的答案。如果我们历史地考虑新的空间形式——例如新的城市形式——它们很可能为城市规划者提供新的方法,而在这种意义上,地方就构成一种方法。例如,洛杉矶的第一批高速公路,它们把一种新的升高的高速公路系统迭加在旧的平面街道系统上面:这种新的结构的差别本身可以被认为是一种哲学概念,一种新的概念,由此出发,你可能会重新思考这个或那个旧的城市中心,或者更进一步,这个或那个有待于发展的阳光地带的连接(阳光地带指从美国加利福尼亚到北卡莱罗纳横跨美国的阳光充足的地带——译注)。于是,有一段时间,洛杉矶的概念就是现代;它是不是乌托邦的完全是另一个问题,但很长时间,对于许多不同的人来说,洛杉矶也确实是一种乌托邦。布莱希特是这样评论好莱坞的:

好莱坞村是按照这地方人们/心里的天堂概念设计。在这里/人们认识到需要天堂和地狱的上帝,/不需要设计两种住所,只需要/一种:天堂即是。它对于/不富裕、不成功的人/就是地狱。

这是一种真正的辩证;真正的对立统一!这个乌托邦像所有其他的乌托邦一样,也许一开始根本就不曾存在,在这种特殊的乌托邦里,是否有可能理清否定和肯定的方面?这正是我们这里要讨论的问题;但在讨论之前,我们需要进一步做些准备工作。

对于前提的例子,即一种新型城市为其他未来新型城市的建设或组织树立样板,其基本依据是我们不再相信进步是可能的,例如城市可以改进。于是“什么是乌托邦”的问题便与现在已成传统的、倍受批判的资产阶级进步观念相一致,并因此含蓄地与目的论本身相一致,与宏大叙事和总体计划相一致,与一个更好的未来的观念相一致——这个未来不仅依靠我们自己实现它的意志,而且在某种程度上是事物本身的性质,是深层存在的可能性和潜力,它有待于释放出来,并最终会幸运地出现。但是,是否还有人相信进步呢?即使按照我们的例子限定于空间领域,是否建筑师和城市规划者仍然激情地为乌托邦的城市工作?毫无疑问,乌托邦的城市是现代主义的主题:人们会想到从勒考比西埃到康斯坦、从洛克菲勒中心到纳粹或伟大的苏维埃计划的每一个人。在更低的层面上,人们会想到城市的更新或罗伯特·莫塞斯。但现代主义已成过去,我的印象是,后现代的城市,不论西方还是东方,北方还是南方,都不会鼓励进步甚至改进的思想,更不用说旧日的乌托邦想象;这种看法的理由是,后现代的城市似乎处于永恒的危机之中,好像只能被看作是一种灾难而不是机会。就空间而言,富人正在迫不及待地退到他们装了大门的社区和严加防护的围墙之内;中产阶级不知疲倦忙于以新开发的同样的住宅掩盖自然的最后的痕迹;而从以前的乡村涌入城市的穷人则在临时性的郊区不断膨胀,人口激增,无法抵制,用不了几年,世界上最大的十个城市将不再包括第一世界的大都会。一些过去的伟大的反乌托邦作品——我想到20世纪70年代约翰·布鲁纳的小说——曾集中描写当时公认的人口过剩的梦魇;但那是现代主义的梦魇,而我们今天所面对的也许不是反乌托邦的,而是以一种相当不同的方式实际经历的东西,带有真正的后现代的模糊性;它俨然排除了进步或解决的可能。

实际上,只要想想今天对人类生存的四大威胁就足以说明问题——生态灾难,世界范围的贫困和饥饿,全球范围的结构性的失业,似乎无法控制的各种武器交易,包括激光制导导弹和无人驾驶飞机(在武器方面,进步仍然明显存在!)——只要想想这四种威胁的趋势(导致传染病,警察国家,种族战争,以及不相关的毒品)就足以使我们认识到,在这些领域的任何一个当中,世界上任何地方都没有真正有力的对抗力量,当然在美国是没有的,因为美国本身就是造成大部分这些威胁的原因。

在这种情况下,真正的乌托邦想象的最后希望,乌托邦预见美好未来的最后努力,都成了相当反常的东西,我的意思是指所谓的自由市场基础论,它抓住全球化的时刻,预言世界范围不加控制的全球市场会带来全面发展,具有奇妙的产生奇迹的力量。但这曾是一种乌托邦,依赖于亚当·斯密看不见的手的无意识的运作,它与乌托邦的“有意图的社会”的极度的意识明显不同,对它的普适性的灵丹妙药进行疯狂地赌博,而世界上大部分的人都急于获得这种灵丹妙药。这种正在消逝的乌托邦的努力,尽管从经济到政治不断改变它的规则,把市场自由变换为民主自由,但它并没有恢复多少力量。就此而言,作为一个政治口号,乌托邦的旗帜已经传到了批评家的手上,传到了自由市场全球化的敌人的手上,对于所有想象另一个可能的世界的各种新的政治力量,它已经变成了团结一致的呐喊或“空洞的能指”。

然而,空洞的能指远远脱离了从柏拉图和莫尔以降我们所熟悉的那种乌托邦想象,因此这里我也许应该谈谈我前不久出版的论乌托邦的著作《未来考古学》。这篇文章即使不是对那本书的补充,也可以说是对它的重新思考。那本书可能纠缠其读者认真思考(假如不是令他们厌烦)的东西,不仅是反复强调乌托邦的形式而非内容——表面看似乎属于正常的文学批评,尽管这么看令人悲哀——而且还有另一个更容易抓住不在意的读者的主题,这就是它反复强调乌托邦之重要不在于它可以正面想象和建议的东西,而在于它无法想象和难以想象的东西。我认为,乌托邦不是一种表征而是一种作用,旨在揭示我们对未来想象的局限,超越这种局限,我们似乎再不能想象我们自己社会和世界的变化(除非是反乌托邦和灾难方面的变化)。那么这是想象的无能,还是对变化的可能性的根本怀疑——不论我们对理想的变化的想象多么诱人?这里我们难道没有触及所说的犬儒主义的原因,而不是我们的未来感的贫乏或者乌托邦冲动本身的消失?由于犬儒主义的概念已经远远超出了皮特·斯劳特迪克(Peter Sloterdyk)多年前提出时的意义,所以它的特征可以说有些像是政治冷漠的反面表现。它知道我们社会的一切,知道晚期资本主义一切错误的东西,知道这种制度的一切结构性的毒害,然而它不表示愤怒,而是表现出明显的无能——不一定是坏的信念。它既不可能受打击也不可能被诽谤中伤,如像市场体制早期阶段特权基层可能遭受的那样;而对这种制度的揭露,对它的分析以及它在光天化日之下所展现的功能,也不再促使它进行批判或形成批评的动因。所有这些我们也可以从意识形态方面来讨论:如果意识形态这个词处于困难时期,也许是因为在某种意义上不再有任何错误的意识,不再需要以理性化的理想主义或利他主义来掩饰这种制度的作用以及它的各种计划,因此暴露这些理性化的问题,以及揭穿它们的基本姿态,似乎都再无必要。

于是乌托邦的消逝便成了所有这些发展之间的一种结合:历史性或未来感的削弱,深信不论多么期望变化也不可能再有根本的变化,还有因此而出现的犬儒主义的观念。对此我们也许可以添上自上次世界大战以来过度积累的金钱的绝对力量,这种力量保持着资本主义在各个地方的地位,同时强化着它的机制和它的武装力量。或许我们还应该援用另一种不同的因素,一种心理适应的因素——就是说,无处不在的消费主义本身已经变成了一种目的,它正在改变发达国家的日常生活,而它的方式表明,由多种欲望和消费构成的乌托邦主义在这里已经存在,无须再增加什么。

关于我们想象乌托邦的能力的局限,以及我们再不能展望未来的现时的情况,暂时就谈这些。但是,如果说乌托邦的表征今天已经在各个地方消失,显然是错误的。我的书所做的另一个重要的批判表明,我没有尽到一个乌托邦主义者的责任,因为我漏掉了那些仍然存在的乌托邦的想象,这些想象大部分集中于反共产主义或后共产主义的信念,即认为小的就是美的,甚至认为发展并不是理想的,社区的自我组织才是乌托邦生活的基本条件,即使对于大规模的工业,首要的东西也是自我管理和合作:换句话说,乌托邦主义的本质不是独创的经济计划(例如取消货币),而是集体本身,社会联系要比个人主义和竞争的动机更加重要。

20世纪60年代(和70年代)伟大的乌托邦倾向于从种族和性属方面展现这种想象:因此在马吉·佩尔西(Marge Peircy)的《时代边缘的妇女》(Woman on the Edge of Time, 1976)里我们看到了难以忘记的男性乳房喂养的形象,看到了(在厄秀拉·勒奎恩的作品里)最早的美国人村庄的理想。后来,在一个不同的历史时刻,在法国,在1981年社会党取得选举胜利的时刻,我们看到了雅克·阿塔利(Jacques Attali)自由的集体工具车间的形象,在那里,每一个邻居都能找到修理、重建、改变空间的原料;还有周期性的节日,它们像在卢梭的作品里那样,再次肯定了集体本身的计划。同时,在我们自己的时代,随着无政府主义的复活,对于工人们自我管理的各种生动的再现恢复了对这些问题的阶级意识,例如诺米·克雷恩(Naomi Klein)值得赞赏的电影《收回》,描写了阿根廷一家破产工厂的厂主抛弃了工人,工人们占据了工厂。这种对车间基层结构变革的断断续续的想象,从马克思关于公社的演说到南斯拉夫的工厂自治再到关于六十年代的电影,如《为行动而行动》(Coup pour coup, 1972),确实激活并强化了政治行动;而这种想象在美国的昨天和今天都明显地存在。

对这些飞地式的乌托邦进行实际的政治否定是不合适的,因为它们总是受到它们周围的私有企业和垄断霸权的威胁,受到分配制度的摆布,更不用说还受统治的司法制度的约束。这里我想谈谈革命的抒情诗这一文类:实际上,在威廉·燕卜荪的《田园诗种种》(Versions of Pastoral, 1960)里,他走了很长的路才把社会主义现实主义吸纳到这种形式,鉴于其中所描写的牧羊的男女,乡村的恬静和满足,这种形式似乎在资产阶级时期的文学里已经完全消失。威廉·莫里斯把他伟大的乌托邦的副标题定名为“休闲的时代”:在审美层面上,这确实是田园诗作为一个文类展现的前景:摆脱了真实社会世界的巨大的焦虑,看见了一个平静的地方,一个理想的富于人性的地方,一个改变了今天我们所知道的社会关系的地方,一个社会关系成为布莱希特所说的“友好”关系的地方。在那种意义上,我所说的再现的乌托邦今天确实像是采取了田园诗的形式;因此,在心理和无意识充满狂乱与躁动、压抑和障碍的时代,我们需要恢复这些古代文类的意义以及它们的价值和作用。

我确实认为这种再现的乌托邦的占有一定的地位,甚至具有政治上的作用:正如我在《未来考古学》试图论证的,这些看似平静的形象本身也是强烈的断裂,它动摇了那种认为未来与我们现在相同的陈腐观念,干预并中断了习惯性的对制度的复制以及对意识形态的赞同,从而打开了一条裂缝,不论这个裂缝多么小,开始可能像头发丝那么细小,但通过这个裂缝,另一种未来、另一种制度的时间性的图像却可能出现。

然而今天我想提出一种不同的援用那种未来的方式,提出一种不同的乌托邦的作用;在某种意义上,它的前提是我在书的开始所提出的那种区分:区分乌托邦计划和乌托邦冲动,区分乌托邦的规划者和乌托邦的解释者,例如,如果你们喜欢,区分莫尔或傅立叶和布洛赫。乌托邦计划的目的是争取实现某种乌托邦,它可以是谦逊的也可以是雄心勃勃的,因人而定:可以从整个国家甚至世界范围的社会革命,一直到单独一个建筑或花园的独特的乌托邦空间的设计;但是,除了乌托邦对现实本身的改革之外,它们有一个共同之处,这就是它们都必须以某种方式面对封闭的或飞地的结构。因此这些乌托邦空间无论其范围如何都是整体性的;它们象征着一个改变了的世界;这样它们就必须在乌托邦和非乌托邦之间假定界限;而只有从这种界限和这种飞地结构出发,才能开始对乌托邦进行认真的批判。

不过,对乌托邦冲动的解释必须考虑一些碎片:这种冲动不是象征的而是寓言的,它既不符合乌托邦计划也不符合乌托邦实践,它表达乌托邦的欲望,并采取各种预想不到的、掩饰的、遮盖的、扭曲的方式。因此乌托邦冲动需要某种阐释:需要探索发现的工作,在真实的风光里解释和解读出乌托邦的线索和痕迹;需要对乌托邦在现实中的无意识的投入进行理论阐述和解释,不论这种投入是大是小,也不论这种投入本身的实际情况是不是与乌托邦远离。这里的前提是:最有害的现象可以用作各种意料之外的愿望实现和乌托邦满足的储藏室和隐蔽地。

现在,我需要澄清我的题目所说的“方法”,并对我所提供的两种奇怪的、甚至反常的解读进行理论的说明。我认为这里概述的乌托邦的“方法”既不是阐释的计划也不是政治的计划,而是像结构的颠倒,即福柯遵循尼采所称的谱系学。他用谱系学的意思是使他自己的(甚或更一般化的或后现代的)“方法”与经验主义的历史或唯心主义历史学家重构的进化论的叙事明显地区分开来,形成鲜明的对照。谱系学事实上不应理解为年代顺序,也不应理解为叙事,而是一种逻辑活动(采用黑格尔的“逻辑”的意思,但不是黑格尔的论述)。换言之,谱系学的意思是把某种既定现象出现的各种逻辑前提置于适当的位置,但并以任何方式包含前提构成现象的原因,更不用说先前的现象或一些早期的阶段。诚然,由于谱系的前提几乎总是采取先前历史事件的形式,所以误解——以及把新的构成纳入旧的历史方法(年代学,因果关系,叙事,理想主义的社区)——总是不可避免的。

对于未来的建构,迄今没有任何术语像谱系对建构过去那么有用;肯定不能把它称为未来学,我想乌托邦学也没有什么意义。但是,这种活动本身在于以巨大的努力改变迄今只存在于我们现时之中的一些现象的价值;以实验的态度肯定我们自己世界里明显否定的事物,肯定反乌托邦如果更仔细地观察其实就是乌托邦,同时要把我们现时经验中的具体特征分离出来,把它们看作是一种不同制度的构成因素。

这种未来的阐释只在一种特定意义上是政治行为:即它有助于重新唤醒关于可能的、另外的未来的想象,重新唤醒我们的制度——自以为是历史的终结——必然压制并使之瘫痪的那种历史性。在这种意义上,乌托邦学可以复活思想里长期睡眠的部分,复活政治、历史和社会想象中因不用而退化的器官,复活因长期不锻炼而僵硬的肌肉,复活因长期习惯于不行动而丧失的革命姿态。这种对未来性复活和假定不同的未来本身并不是政治的计划,甚至也不是政治的实践:但如果没有这种复活,很难看到如何能形成持久的、有效的政治行动。

(王逢振译)

FJ-Part

UTOPIA AS METHOD, OR, THE USES OF THE FUTURE

We ordinarily think of Utopia as a place, or if you like a non-place that looks like a place. How can a place be a method? Such is the conundrum with which I wanted to confront you, and maybe it has an easy answer. If we think of historically new forms of space – historically new forms of the city, for example – they might well offer new models for urbanists and in that sense constitute a kind of method. The first freeways in Los Angeles, for example, project a new system of elevated express highways superimposed on an older system of surface streets: that new structural difference might be thought to be a philosophical concept in its own right, a new one, in terms of which you might want to rethink this or that older urban center, or better still, this or that as yet undeveloped sunbelt agglomeration. For a time then, the Los Angeles concept is modern; whether it is Utopian is another matter altogether, although Los Angeles has also been a Utopia for many different kinds of people over the years. Here is Brecht on Hollywood:

The village of Hollywood was planned according to the notion

People in these parts have of heaven. In these parts

They have come to the conclusion that God

Requiring a heaven and a hell, didn’t need to

Plan two establishments but

Just the one: heaven. It

Serves the unprosperous, unsuccessful

As hell.

A true dialectic; a true unity of opposites! Will it be possible to untangle the negative from the positive in this particular Utopia, which has perhaps also, like all the other Utopias, never existed in the first place? Something like this will be our problem here; but we need to work through some further preliminaries before we get that far.

For the hypothetical example of a new kind of city that sets an example for the building or reorganization of other new kinds of cities to come is based on a conviction we may no longer be able to rely on, namely, the belief that progress is possible and that cities, for example, can be improved. What is Utopian is then identified with this now traditional and much criticized bourgeois idea of progress, and thus implicitly with teleology as such, with the grand narrative and the master plan, with the idea of a better future, a future not only dependent on our own will to bring it into being but also somehow inscribed in the very nature of things, waiting to be set free, lying in the deeper possibilities and potentialities of being, from which at length and with luck it may emerge. But does anyone believe in progress any longer? Even keeping to the realm of the spatial we have taken as an example, are the architects and urbanists still passionately at work on Utopian cities? The Utopian city was surely a staple of modernism: one thinks of everybody from LeCorbusier to Constant, from Rockefeller Center to the great Nazi or Soviet projects. At a lower level, one thinks of urban renewal and of Robert Moses. But modernism is over, and it is my impression that the postmodern city, west or east, north or south, does not encourage thoughts of progress or even improvement, let alone Utopian visions of the older kind; and this for the very good reason that the postmodern city seems to be in permanent crisis, and to be thought of, if at all, as a catastrophe rather than an opportunity. As far as space is concerned, the rich are withdrawing ever more urgently into their gated communities and their fortified enclosures; the middle classes are tirelessly engaged in covering the last vestiges of nature with acres of identical development homes; while the poor, pouring in from the former countryside, swell the makeshift outskirts with a population explosion so irrepressible that in a few years none of the ten largest cities on the globe will include the familiar first-world metropolises any longer. Some of the great dystopias of the past – I think of John Brunner’s novels from the early 1970s– centered on what was then the alleged nightmare of overpopulation; but that was a modernist nightmare, and what we confront today is perhaps not a dystopia either, but rather a certainty lived in a rather different way and with a properly postmodern ambivalence; which at any rate distinctly forecloses the possibility of progress or of solutions.

Indeed, it suffices to think of the four fundamental threats to the survival of the human race today – ecological catastrophe, worldwide poverty and famine, structural unemployment on a global scale, and the seemingly uncontrollable traffic in armaments of all kinds, including smart bombs and unmanned drones (in armaments, progress does apparently still exist!) – it suffices to think of these four trends alone (leaving pandemics, police states, race wars, and drugs out of the picture) for us to realize that in each of these areas no serious counterforce exists anywhere in the world, and certainly not in the United States, which is itself the cause of most of them.

Under these circumstances, the last gasp of a properly Utopian vision, the last attempt at a Utopian forecast of the future transfigured, was a rather perverse one, I mean so-called free market fundamentalism as it seized the moment of globalization to predict the rising of all boats and the wonder-working miraculous powers of world-wide unregulated global markets. But this was a Utopia which, drawing on the unconscious operations of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and in sharp contrast to the hyperconsciousness of the Utopian “intentional community”, gambled everything on the unintentionality of its universal panacea, for which any number of populations around the globe proved unwilling to wait. Nor did this waning Utopian effort recover much strength by shifting to a different code, from economics to politics, and rebaptizing the freedom of the market as the freedom of democracy. To that degree, as a political slogan, the banner of Utopia has been passed to the critics and the enemies of free-market globalization and has become the unifying rallying cry or “empty signifier” of all those varied new political forces who are trying to imagine how another world might be possible.

Yet an empty signifier seems far enough away from the Utopian visions with which we are familiar from More and Plato on down, and this is probably the right moment to say a word about the long book on Utopias I have just published and of which this essay is something of a reconsideration, if not a supplement. What has tended to perplex readers of this book, Archeologies of the Future, if not to annoy them, is not only the repeated insistence on the form rather than the content of Utopias – something that would on the face of it scarcely be unusual in literary criticism, no matter how deplorable – but also another thesis more likely to catch the unwary reader up short, namely the repeated insistence that what is important in a Utopia is not what can be positively imagined and proposed, but rather what is not imaginable and not conceivable. The Utopia, I argue, is not a representation but an operation calculated to disclose the limits of our own imagination of the future, the lines beyond which we do not seem able to go in imagining changes in our own society and world (except in the direction of dystopia and catastrophe). Is this then a failure of imagination, or is it rather simply a fundamental skepticism about the possibilities of change as such, no matter how attractive our visions of what it would be desirable to change into? Do we not here touch on what has come to be called cynical reason, rather than the impoverishment of our own sense of the future, or the waning of the Utopian impulse itself? Cynical reason, as the concept has evolved far beyond what Peter Sloterdyk named so many years ago, can be characterized as something like the inversion of political apathy. It knows everything about our own society, everything that is wrong with late capitalism, all the structural toxicities of the system, and yet it declines indignation, in a kind of impotent lucidity which may not even be bad faith. It cannot be shocked or scandalized, as the privileged were able to be at earlier moments of the market system; nor is the deconcealment of this system, its analysis and functional demonstration in the light of day, any longer effective in compelling critical reactions or motivations. We may say all this in terms of ideology as well: if that word has fallen on hard times, it is perhaps because in a sense there is no longer any false consciousness, no longer any need to disguise the workings of the system and its various programs in terms of idealistic or altruistic rationalizations; so that the unmasking of those rationalizations, the primordial gesture of debunking and of exposure, no longer seems necessary.

The waning of Utopias is thus a conjuncture between all these developments: a weakening of historicity or of the sense of the future; a conviction that no fundamental change is any longer possible, however desirable; and cynical reason as such. To which we might add that sheer power of excess money accumulated since the last great world war, which keeps the system in place everywhere, reinforcing its institutions and its armed forces. Or maybe we should also adduce yet a different kind of factor, one of psychological conditioning – namely that omnipresent consumerism which, having become an end in itself, is transforming the daily life of the advanced countries in such a way as to suggest that the Utopianism of multiple desires and consumption is here already and needs no further supplement.

So much for the limits on our capacity to imagine Utopia as such, and for what it tells us about a present in which we cannot any longer envision that future. But it would clearly be wrong to say that the representational Utopia has everywhere today disappeared; and another significant critique of my book suggested that I failed to do my duty as a Utopian insomuch as I omitted any mention of these surviving Utopian visions, which mostly center on the anti- or post-communist conviction that small is beautiful, or even that growth is undesirable, that the self-organization of communities is the fundamental condition of Utopian life, and that even with large-scale industry the first priority is self-management and cooperation: in other words, that what is essential in Utopianism is not the ingenious economic scheme (such as the abolition of money, for example) so much as it is collectivity as such, the primacy of the social bond over the individualistic and the competitive impulses.

The great Utopias of the 1960s (and 70s) tended to stage such visions in terms of race and gender: thus we have the unforgettable image of male breast-feeding in Marge Peircy’s Woman on the Edge of Time (1976), and the ideal (in LeGuin as well) of the villages of the First Americans. Later on, at a different historical moment, in France, at the moment of the socialist electoral victory of 1981, we have Jacques Attali’s image of free collective tool-shops, where anyone in the neighborhood can find the materials to repair, to rebuild, to transform space; along with the periodic festivals that, as in Rousseau, reaffirm the collective project itself. In our own time, meanwhile, with the resurgence of anarchism, a variety of vivid representations of workers’ self-management restore the sense of class to these concerns, as in Naomi Klein’s admirable film The Take, about the seizure of a factory in Argentina by workers who have been abandoned by their bankrupt owner. Such intermittent visions of the structural transformation of the shopfloor itself have energized and revitalized political action from Marx’s lectures on the Commune all the way to the program of Jugoslavian autogestion and to soixante-huitard films like Coup pour coup (Marin Karmitz, 1972); and they clearly persist in America yesterday and today.

It is not appropriate to raise practical political objections to these enclave utopias, always threatened by the hegemony of private business and monopoly all around them, and at the mercy of distribution as well, not to speak of the dominant legal system. I would rather speak of the genre of the revolutionary idyll: and indeed, in his Versions of Pastoral (1960), William Empson went a long way towards assimilating socialist realism in general to such a form, which, with its shepherds and shepherdesses and its rural peacefulness and fulfillment, seems to have died out everywhere in the literature of the bourgeois age as such. William Morris famously subtitled his great Utopia “an epoch of rest”: and this is indeed what, on an aesthetic level, the idyll or the pastoral promises as a genre: relief from the frenzied anxieties of the actual social world, a glimpse into a place of stillness and of transfigured human nature, of the transformations of the social relations we know today into what Brecht memorably called “friendliness”. To that degree, what I’ve been calling representational Utopias today do seem to take the form of the idyll or the pastoral; and assuredly we do need to recover the significance of these ancient genres and their value and usefulness in an age in which the very psyche and the unconscious have been so thoroughly colonized by addictive frenzy and commotion, compulsiveness and frustration.

So I do see a place for the representational utopia, and even a political function for it: as I tried to argue in Archeologies, these seemingly peaceful images are also, in and of themselves, violent ruptures with what is, breaks that destabilize our stereotypes of a future that is the same as our own present, intervention that interrupt the reproduction of the system in habit and in ideological consent and institute that fissure, however minimal and initially little more than a hair-line fracture, through which another picture of the future and another system of temporality altogether might emerge.

Yet today I also want to project a different way of invoking that future and to propose a different function for the Utopian; and in a sense it is premised on the distinction I proposed at the very beginning of my book between the Utopian program and the Utopian impulse, between Utopian planners and Utopian interpreters, so to speak, or if you like, between More or Fourier and Ernst Bloch. The Utopian program, which aims at the realization of a Utopia, can be as modest or as ambitious as one wants: it can range from a whole social revolution, on the national or even the world scale, all the way down to the designing of the uniquely Utopian space of a single building or garden: what all have in common, however, besides the Utopian transformation of reality itself, is that closure or enclave structure which all Utopias must seemingly confront one way or another. These Utopian spaces are thus on whatever scale totalities; they are symbolic of a world transformed; as such they must posit limits, boundaries between the Utopian and the non-Utopian; and it is of course with such limits and with such enclave structure that any serious critique of Utopia will begin.

The interpretation of the Utopian impulse, however, necessarily deals with fragments: it is not symbolic but allegorical: it does not correspond to a plan or to Utopian praxis, it expresses Utopian desire and invests it in a variety of unexpected and disguised, concealed, distorted ways. The Utopian impulse therefore calls for a hermeneutic: for the detective work of a decipherment and a reading of Utopian clues and traces in the landscape of the real; a theorization and interpretation of unconscious Utopian investments in realities large or small, which may in themselves be far from Utopian in their actuality. The premise here is then that the most noxious phenomena can serve as the repository and hiding place for all kinds of unsuspected wish-fulfillments and Utopian gratifications; indeed, I have often used the example of the humble aspirin as the unwitting bearer of the most extravagant longings for immortality and for the transfiguration of the body.

Now I need to clarify the “method” to which my title refers and to give a theoretical account of the rather peculiar and even perverse readings I have offered of my two illustrations. Just as I hasten to assure the reader that I do not mean to celebrate Wal-Mart, let alone to forecast the emergence of anything good and progressive from this astonishing new post-monopoly institution, so also my discussion of Paolo Virno was not to be taken as an endorsement of some putative new politics of “multitude” nor even as a practical-political discussion – something he is perfectly capable of conducting in his own voice and indeed which the final chapter of his Grammar (on which I have not touched) begins to lay out. Or to put it in a different and more accurate way: it does not matter what I think personally about the future of the Wal-Mart-type business operation or about the “politics of multitude”; I have been using both topics and both occasions to illustrate a method, about which it is now important to say that it is meant to be distinct from any of those outlined at the beginning of this paper.

The hermeneutic I have wanted to demonstrate is therefore not predictive, nor is it symptomological: it is not meant to read the outlines of the future within the present, nor is it meant to identify the operations of collective wish-fulfillment within the rather unpleasant phenomena (monopoly, overpopulation) which are its objects of examination. The latter approach – generally identified with Ernst Bloch’s work – would have to take the opinions and ideologies, the ways of life and situations, of actually existing social groups far more seriously and empirically into consideration than this exercise has done. The former line of inquiry, that of practical politics and programs, and identified here with Marx and with Lenin, would have had to assess the concrete world situation in its economic and political objectivity, as well as in the balance of ideological forces, from a strategic perspective rather than from isolated data.

I consider the Utopian “method” outlined here as neither hermeneutic nor political program, but rather something like the structural inversion of what Foucault, following Nietzsche, called the genealogy. He meant by that to distinguish his own (or perhaps even some more generalized poststructural or postmodern) “method” in sharp contrast from either empirical history or from the evolutionary narratives reconstructed by idealist historians. The genealogy was in effect to be understood as neither chronological or narrative but rather a logical operation (taking “logic” in a Hegelian sense without being Hegelian about it). Genealogy in other words was meant to lay in place the various logical preconditions for the appearance of a given phenomenon, without in any way implying that they constituted the latter’s causes, let alone the latter’s antecedents or early stages. To be sure, inasmuch as those genealogical preconditions almost always took the form of earlier historical events, misunderstanding – and the assimilation of the new construction to either of the older historical approaches (chronology, causality, narrative, idealist continuity) – was always inevitable, and could not be warded off by Raymond Roussel’s immortal anecdote of the tourist who claimed to have discovered, under glass in a provincial museum, “the skull of Voltaire as a child”.

There is so far no term as useful for the construction of the future as that of genealogy for such a construction of the past; it is certainly not to be called futurology, while utopology will never mean much, I fear. The operation itself, however, consists in a prodigious effort to change the valences on phenomena which so far exist only in our own present; and experimentally to declare positive things which are clearly negative in our own world, to affirm that dystopia is in reality utopia if examined more closely, to isolate specific features in our empirical present so as to read them as components of a different system. This is in fact what we have seen Virno doing when he borrows an enumeration of what in Heidegger are clearly enough meant to be negative and highly critical features of modern society or modern actuality, staging each of these alleged symptoms of degradation as an occasion for celebration and as a promise of what he does not – but what we may – call an alternate Utopian future.

This kind of prospective hermeneutic is a political act only in one specific sense: as a contribution to the reawakening of the imagination of possible and alternate futures, a reawakening of that historicity which our system – offering itself as the very end of history – necessarily represses and paralyzes. This is the sense in which utopology revives long dormant parts of the mind, unused organs of political and historical and social imagination which have virtually atrophied for lack of use, muscles of praxis we have long since ceased exercising, revolutionary gestures we have lost the habit of performing, even subliminally. Such a revival of futurity and of the positing of alternate futures is not itself a political program nor even a political practice: but it is hard to see how any durable or effective political action could come into being without it.

Representing Darfur: A Marxist Critique of Ideology

意识形态的马克思主义批评

Anthony O’Brien (Queens College, The City University of New York)

安东尼·奥布赖恩 纽约市立大学昆斯学院

1. 达尔福尔冲突的对抗性表现:达尔福尔冲突是一个非常热门的国际议题,而它的各种表现也是非常剧烈地互相对抗。马克思主义者认为这种不一致的表现是意识形态话语,需要尖锐的批评。马克思主义者也需要从世界工人阶级的角度客观的评判达尔福尔冲突。这样,理论问题就在于如何在国家政治组织的全球意识形态中实施这样的意识形态批评,并且如何在帝国主义内部发生对抗的时刻设想国际工人阶级的政治实践。

a)帝国主义表现:西方帝国主义意识形态认为达尔福尔冲突是苏丹政府和联盟军队与战时平民之间的冲突引起的种族屠杀。同时他们认为这也是对抗“非洲”村民的一次“阿拉伯”种族屠杀,由此需要通过联合国、北大西洋公约组织或者美国军事力量的介入。但是中国政府认为这是苏丹人民的内部冲突,应该通过政治手段而不是武力手段解决。马克思主义批评则提出支持苏丹,并且质疑中国对苏丹和非洲的外交政策中是否开始出现帝国主义的新趋势。

b)自由、非干涉主义、和平主义的表现:有些人(Mahmood MamdaniAlex De WaalGerard Prunier)认为达尔福尔冲突不是种族屠杀而是内战,从苏丹后殖民的南北内战开始,延续到1984年以来大气候危机背景下苏丹人民之间的大规模冲突。同样法国自由干涉主义者们反对军事干涉,批评将这个冲突种族主义化,呼吁停火和谈判会晤。Mamdani不仅批评美国可能实施的军事干涉,还暗示所有“外来”力量(也包括中国)应该一起用和平的手段解决问题。

c)马克思主义的表现:我认为这次冲突之中的各方力量都卷入了一场当地的和国家的资本主义者为争夺“原始积累”和剥削达尔福尔和苏丹工人阶级的权利之战,最终是指向苏丹的资源和石油。但是这次冲突是发生在旧帝国主义霸权和新兴的帝国主义集团对石油的争夺的背景下。以上所提到的各种表现在批判的同时,都忽略了这一点。

2. 意识形态的马克思主义批评。这一部分主要分析由Mamdani开始的种族主义化批评和种族屠杀的观点,但是运用马克思主义更深入地分析种族主义和国家主义掩盖了达尔福尔的阶级斗争,探讨工人阶级批评中的“种族”和“国家”两个概念。

3. 达尔福尔的各种力量的阶级分析:马克思主义批评不仅仅针对意识形态。要理解达尔福尔需要分析当地的工人阶级的成分,也包括各种有组织的团体。而且需要分析当前在达尔福尔的各种帝国主义势力,特别是美国和法国,以及中国的新兴帝国主义势力。

4. 国际主义和革命:无产阶级的可能性。达尔福尔冲突中的各种表现都理所当然地认为资本主义是解决达尔福尔大屠杀的各种政治方案中不可避免的、永恒的基本结构,都没有集中分析这个基本结构本身的问题,没有分析资本主义的社会关系本身就是帝国主义、种族主义和战争的潜在根源。我认为对此的批评研究提出了以下几个理论和实践问题:a)当工人阶级和资本阶级的冲突仍然是资本主义体系中的主要矛盾,决定形势的不是阶级斗争而是资本主义和帝国主义各种敌对势力之间的斗争。这是不是正确的?b)如果a是对的,帝国主义内部的对抗将导致另一次世界大战,美国和中国可能是主要的敌对力量。而我们工人和知识分子没有国家可言,只有一个整体的世界,我们如何在新的革命浪潮中重申自己的主动权?我建议从国际工人阶级的角度来理解这次的冲突事件,所有的工人和知识分子应该携手反抗资本主义剥削。

1. Rival Representations of the Darfur Conflict. The Darfur conflict, because of its scale of human suffering and the high stakes in this geo-strategic region of Africa, is a very hot international issue; and therefore representations of Darfur are hotly contested. Marxists regard these differing accounts of Darfur as ideological discourses in need of sharp critique; we Marxists also need to offer an objective account of Darfur from the point of view of the world’s working class. The theoretical problems here are how to conduct such a critique of ideology in the global ideological state apparatus, and how to imagine international working-class political practice in this moment of inter-imperialist rivalry.

(a) Imperialist Representations. Western imperialist ideology advances the view of Darfur as a genocide committed by the government of Sudan (GoS) and its allied janjawid militia against non-combatants in Darfur, in the course of a counter-insurgency campaign against the armed rebellion of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and various factions of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM). Upheld by the large Save Darfur movement in the U.S., this representation of Darfur also racializes it as an “Arab genocide” against “African” villagers, and leads to calls to “stop the genocide” through military intervention by UN, NATO, or U.S. forces. The Chinese government view, on the other hand, regards Darfur as an internal Sudanese matter to be resolved not militarily but politically. (I hope that Chinese colleagues at the conference will help me understand Chinese official discourse on Darfur more comprehensively.) A Marxist critique of that ideological position points out that it supports capitalist nation-states like Sudan. It also raises the question whether, as capitalism intensifies in China, Chinese foreign policy in Sudan and Africa may be moving towards a new, incipient or emergent form of imperialism. If this is the case, then Darfur represents a clash between U.S., French, and (a new, emergent) Chinese imperialism. Evidence for this view will be discussed in section 3 of the paper, in the light of neo-Marxist theories of imperialism like those of David Harvey and Giovanni Arrighi. UN representations of Darfur are also essentially imperialist; while avoiding the extreme racialization of the conflict and the term “genocide,” UN discourse endorses armed intervention in the guise of “peace-keeepers,” thereby maintaining the local and global capitalist world-order.

(b) Liberal, Non-interventionist, Pacifist Representations. The writings of Mahmood Mamdani, Alex De Waal, Gérard Prunier and others in this vein view Darfur not as a genocide (though, in Mamdani’s words, “it could become” a genocide), but as a civil war, spilling over from the long postcolonial North-South civil war in Sudan, and continuing the endemic Sudanese conflict between center and periphery, in the context of the climate crisis since 1984 that pits pastoralists against agriculturalists. Another example of this view is the critique of French liberal interventionism in Darfur (Bernard Kouchner, Bernard-Henri Lévy) by Philip Cunliffe and others. These writers express the dominant scholarly view of Darfur in African Studies. They criticize the media racialization of the conflict, oppose military intervention, and call for a ceasefire and talks aimed at peace-building, power-sharing, and resource-sharing. Mamdani’s critique of liberal or humanitarian interventionism also criticizes Western imperialism and links possible U.S military intervention in Darfur to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is unclear how this representation of Darfur regards the Chinese presence in Sudan—it does NOT endorse the China-bashing of the Save Darfur movement—but implicit in it is the notion that all “external” actors in Sudan, obviously including China, should collaborate in the peace-building process. Mamdani is skeptical of all external actors in African conflicts, basing his pacifist hopes on local African actors primarily.

(c) A Marxist Representation. In my view, based on a class analysis of the forces on the ground (to the limited extent that we have reliable information), all sides in the Darfur civil war and counter-insurgency, GoS, JEM, and SLM alike, are engaged in a battle between rival local and national capitalists for the rights to “primitive accumulation” and exploitation of Darfuri and Sudanese workers. This intra-capitalist battle in Darfur and Sudan generally is ultimately about the major Sudanese resource, oil. But it takes place in the context of rivalry over oil among the old hegemonic imperialisms (U.S., EU, Japan) and new, emergent imperialist blocs such as Russia, China, and India. Racist and nationalist ideologies among the contending Sudanese capitalists are therefore entangled with imperialist ideologies of all sorts, and obscure the fact that Darfur is a class conflict. Liberal pacifists like Mamdani and De Waal, while criticizing imperialist intervention and racializing ideology, fail to criticize local and national Sudanese capitalists and their exploitation of workers; instead, they call for peace and power-sharing among these capitalist factions, leaving workers to continue being exploited under a capitalist peace. A Marxist view, in contrast, calls on workers in Darfur and Sudan of every ethnicity, tribe, clan, religion, region, and occupation, combatants and non-combatants alike, to take no side in these battles among capitalists, but instead to organize themselves as a class and a party against all capitalists. It calls for international working-class solidarity with workers suffering under capitalism and imperialism in Darfur and Sudan. This difficult political practice must be imagined as possible if workers are ever to regain the initiative in the local and global class struggle, and if the proud history of proletarian internationalism against all imperialisms is ever to re-emerge.

2. Marxist Critique of Ideology. This section focuses on the critique begun by Mamdani of racialization and the claim of genocide, but carries it further into a Marxist critique of the use of racism and nationalism to obscure the class struggle in Darfur, and a working-class critique of the very concepts of “race” and “nation.” Critical Race Theory and modern critiques of “nation-ness” beginning with Benedict Anderson’s post-Marxist book Imagined Communities are influential theories that compete with Marxism on these concepts. Marxists must also consider some theoretical problems in understanding how the class conflict in Darfur is mediated through the many layers of what Althusser called the “ideological state apparatus,” on a global scale: journalism, scholarship, diplomacy, the culture industry, law, even sports (the Beijing Olympics). I ask the audience here to elaborate for me how Darfur is mediated in the Chinese ideological state apparatus, in both official and unofficial discourse.

3. Class Analysis of Forces in Darfur. Marxist critique cannot aim at ideology alone, although as intellectuals this is a primary responsibility we have, to practice “the hermeneutics of suspicion” and see how the class struggle is masked by official discourse. Understanding Darfur also requires class analysis of the composition of the working class there, as well as of organized forces like the government of Sudan (GoS) and the insurgent JEM and SLM groupings. Secondly, it requires analysis of the current imperialist forces at play in Darfur. The world-wide inter-imperialist rivalry over oil—its supply, profits, and control—is key here, particularly the role of U.S. and French imperialism in Sudan and Africa, and also the evidence for calling the growing Chinese economic, political and military presence in Sudan and Africa a new imperialism, based on the exploitative investment of surplus capital in African resources, labor, and markets, and the consolidation of political and military alliances with African capitalist regimes like those in the three largest African oil states, Angola, Nigeria, and Sudan.

4. Internationalism and Revolution: Proletarian Possibilities. The paper concludes by asking: is Darfur an instance of Fukuyama’s “end of history,” a picture of what we get when there is no further resistance to the global triumph of capitalism? It would certainly seem so. All the representations of Darfur criticized here take capitalism for granted as the unending and inevitable framework of any political solutions to the mass slaughter in Darfur. None of them focus on the frame itself as the problem, on capitalist social relations as themselves the underlying cause of imperialism, racism, and war. In that sense even the sharpest critique of a progressive scholar like Mamdani ends up converging with the neoconservative nonsense of Fukuyama. But could Darfur summon us instead to proletarian possibilities, to a revival of international solidarity and revolutionary anticapitalism in every country, and in that way become not an end but a beginning of history? Is Mao’s magnificent prediction still true, that “dark night will have its end”? Is it still true, as Marx said, that workers have no country, that as workers our country is the whole world? If so, the Marxist critique of ideology in the representation of Darfur should be linked to the most profound theoretical and practical questions facing workers under capitalism in every country of the world today. Those are, in my view: (a) is it not true that, while the contradiction between the working class and the capitalists who exploit our labor power remains the primary contradiction in the capitalist system that now governs the entire world, what determines events now is not that class struggle but rather the struggle between rival blocs of capitalists and imperialists? And (b), if (a) is true, and what determines events now is an inter-imperialist rivalry that is rushing us towards another world war in which the U.S. and China may well be the primary adversaries, how can we workers and intellectuals who have no country but the whole world—e.g., workers and intellectuals in both the U.S. and China—re-assert our initiative in a new revolutionary surge? My suggestion is that international working-class understanding and action on the Darfur crisis could be one step on the path to that necessary renewal. It is a step that Chinese, African, U.S., and European workers and intellectuals who oppose capitalist exploitation wherever it exists need to take together.

The Politics of Literary Study in the United States: Eight Propositions

美国文学研究中的政治:八个主张

Barbara Foley ( Rutgers University )

芭芭拉·弗雷 美国新泽西州罗特格斯大学

提要:最近三十年,美国的美国文学研究中最突出的倾向是美国文学的解经典化,也就是去除文学价值的传统观念,去除文学历史演变的陈旧叙述,用更有包容性和更民主的分析框架来替代它们。我发言的意图是以一种马克思主义的视角来辩证地评价这种倾向的优势与缺陷。

The most significant trend in U.S. literary study in the United States in the past 30 years has been the decanonization of American literature—that is, the dismantling of traditional notions of literary value and traditional narratives of literary-historical development and the replacement of these with more inclusive and democratic frames of analysis.

The purpose of my talk is dialectically to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this trend from a Marxist standpoint. My discussion consists of eight major propositions, both descriptive and analytical.

(1)The decanonization trend has its roots in the anti-authoritarian social movements of the 1960s and 1970s: for Civil Rights and Black Power; against the Vietnam War and US imperialism; second-wave feminism. These social movements gave rise to women’s and gender studies; African-American and other ethnic studies (even “whiteness” studies); working-class studies; and post-colonial studies. At first marginalized, these new areas of inquiry have gradually reshaped “mainstream” U.S. literary history, placing Frederick Douglass alongside Ralph Waldo Emerson, Zora Neale Hurston alongside William Faulkner, Leslie Marmon Silko alongside Philip Roth.

(2) Also involved in this trend has been a challenge to the New Critical and myth-and-symbol formalism inherited from the period of the Cold War. Standards of literary value that elevated paradox, ambiguity, irony, and the transcendence of history were seen as ideological manifestations of the anticommunist attack on all socially and politically committed writing. As aesthetics was seen to be intrinsically politicized, traditional notions of literary “greatness” and “genius” were questioned. Literature was resituated in social context, evaluated not only for its intrinsic formal qualities but also for its effects upon readers. This two-pronged attack upon traditional historical and aesthetic approaches to literature, and the reaction the attack generated, resulted in the so-called “culture wars” of the late 1980s and 1990s.

(3) Despite the undeniably progressive features of the decanonization movement, and its appeal to many egalitarian-minded scholars and teachers, in a number of ways this movement has proven readily assimilable to—and in fact supportive of—the needs of capital in the current period. We therefore need to explore the paradox that a literary and cultural program presumably aiming to contest stratification and inequality has—however inadvertently—ended up as part of what Louis Althusser would call the “ideological state apparatus” of a profoundly hierarchical and oppressive social order.

(4)The focus upon “identity” in much recent criticism has precluded a structural analysis of capitalist society and—especially under the rubric of multiculturalism—fostered a profoundly mistaken view of the U.S. as a site of pluralist democracy. The “multi-” in “multiculturalism” leads to metaphorical view of U.S. culture as a “salad,” a “patchwork quilt,” an “orchestra” to which each group makes its distinct “contribution.” While presumably inclusive, this insistence upon each group’s distinctness ironically can reproduce the very racism that originally supplied the basis for white supremacist exclusion. The “culturalism” in “multiculturalism” fosters the notion that culture is the zone of emancipation. We are thus faced with the hypocritical disparity between an “official” culture featuring an inclusive rainbow and the increasing systemic racism of US society in relation to wealth, health care, and access to education. The substitution of “gender” for “sex,” moreover, has done nothing to alter the 76 cents women earn for every dollar earned by men: a pluralist rhetoric alert to the social construction of identities has hardly abolished the “gendered” and “raced” nature of employment.

(5)The questioning of “identity” and “identity politics” in post-structuralist- and deconstructive-influenced theory does not remedy this problem. To urge “hybridity” instead of gendered or raced “essence,” to propose that the “self” is a fiction, a creation of “discourse,” substitutes epistemological anti-foundationalism for social liberation. While the linguistic turn in theory over the past thirty years has usefully pointed up the power relations embedded in binary oppositions and myths of origin, the insistence that all is “discourse,” and there is no such thing as “ideology,” removes the basis upon which it can be argued that one analytical paradigm is more or less adequate to reality than another. The anti-foundationalist wing of the decanonization movement thus largely divests itself of the power of critique and is in practice a form of rewarmed liberal pluralism.

(6)We come now to the question of class. The new field of “working-class studies” has sought to place a positive value on the lives and modes of expression of the U.S. proletariat, past and present; it has encouraged study of the literary radicalism accompanying the U.S. communist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, a body of texts dismissed as crude propaganda during the Cold War. But working-class studies is hardly free of anticommunism; attacks on Marxism as “class reductionism” abound in papers given at working-class studies conferences. The elevation of the local, the dispersed, and the contingent, and the commonly expressed view of “totality” as leading to (often “Stalinist”) “totalitarianism,” indicates the extent to which anticommunism has simply gone into the ideological groundwater of much literary study in the United States. Moreover, working-class studies has reduced class to an identity, or subject position. Working-class-ness is not something to be abolished; it is instead to be valorized and celebrated. Working-class studies thus becomes complicit with capitalist class rule.

(7) The supposed “intersection” of gender, race and class supplies the analytical model most commonly used in the various wings of the decanonization movement to describe the overlap of multiple identities (or discourses about identity) in literary texts. Despite—or perhaps because of—its appeal to liberal pluralism, the intersectionality model is useless, for it obscures the very relationships it would clarify. From a Marxist standpoint, it is the structured totality of capitalist social relations that encloses and explains the workings of gender and race as well as class. This does not mean that gender and/or race are “reducible” to class, or to deny that many experiences represented in literature—or standpoints from which texts are composed—emphasize the centrality of being black, being female, being gay (or being white, male, straight, or for that matter working-class). But the various forms of inequality and oppression in current U.S. society are all sustained and reproduced, if in different ways, by the drive toward capital accumulation. The intersectionality model precludes deep-structural causal analysis, supplying instead a “mapping” that remains on the surface.

(8) I have offered some harsh criticisms of the decanonization movement, which purports to be the most progressive direction in current U.S. literary study. What I have been sketching are, essentially, the deficiencies of liberalism: in its antipathy to Marxism and its promotion of culturalism and pluralism, liberalism supports capitalism as much as does conservatism. (In fact, given the needs of capital in the era of so-called “globalization,” liberalism is arguably the more effective official cultural discourse, even as U.S. imperialism uses an iron fist in furthering its interests in many parts of the world.) But any serious Marxist criticism has to contain self-criticism as well. I myself have done extensive research into U.S. literary radicalism during the period between the wars, and it is clear to me that literary and cultural movements have been most incisively anti-capitalist, most revolutionary, when they have been sustained by leftist political movements attempting to organize the working class and its allies for far-reaching social transformation. Even though the need for the working class to free itself from the capitalist yoke remains urgent, for a complex set of reasons—the topic of another talk entirely!—the left movement in the United States (indeed just about everywhere in the world) is currently quite weak. It must be the goal of Marxists—including Marxist literary theorists—to explore the reasons for this weakness, past and present, in order to rebuild a revolutionary movement than can effectively challenge capitalism, on both cultural and political grounds.

Author”/ “Pirate”: Literary Theory in Global Commerce in Ideas

“原作者”/“侵犯著作权者”:全球观念商业视阈中的文学理论

Martha Woodmansee (Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio)

玛莎·伍德曼西 美国俄亥俄州克里夫兰市 华盛顿天主教大学

提要:“原作者”一直备受文学理论家的关注,也是著作权法中的核心概念,在18世纪和19世纪早期欧洲的跨学科理论研究背景下获得其法律意义,但此后在文学理论和法律理论间的跨学科对话始终未能有效地展开。有鉴于此,本文作者认为我们应重新展开对于“原作者”本质的跨学科、跨文化反思。由于著作权法中对于“原作者”本质过时的、欧洲中心主义的理解,著作权法正日益失去其效力。从文学理论家的角度看,文学作品具有互文性,是集体合作的产物,因此我们不应该认为著作权法完全是法律专家和政策制定者的职责,而应该和他们展开积极的对话,共同致力于著作权法的不断完善。

1. Authorship is one of our central interests as literary scholars. It is an interest we share with a growing number of lawyers and legal scholars specializing in copyright, for “authorship” lies at the very center of this body of law. It is the term of art for the diverse modes of creative production that it is the function of copyright to promote. Copyright law covers painting, sculpture, music, film, literature -- the whole spectrum of literary works from poems, plays, and novels to the kind of scholarly and scientific writing we do, and even computer software programs. As soon as we give some tangible expression to an idea the law considers this a work of authorship and protects it from unauthorized copying for the author’s life plus 70 years.

2. “Authorship” acquired its legal meaning in the rich interdisciplinary -- more precisely, predisciplinary – theoretical milieu of 18th and early 19th century Europe. But as the disciplines specialized, conversation among them, and thus between literary and legal theory, went silent. So, for over a century, these two disciplines have been grappling more or less independently with the same body of ideas. My aim today is to revive interdisciplinary reflection on the nature of authorship and to urge the pressing need for it to become more cross-cultural. This is important, I think, because the law of copyright is increasingly misfiring – it is privatizing, i.e., distributing property in ideas, information, and knowledge in ways that we cannot accept as fair or rational. It can do this, I submit, because of the antiquated and eurocentric understanding of authorship at its center.

3. One may lay legal claim to ownership of ideas only insofar as one is an “author.” What is an author? In the usage that has been absorbed into the law an “author” is the individual responsible for the production of a unique “original” work. Its originality warrants the work’s legal protection both in Anglo-American copyright and in European author’s rights. Under pressure from the U.S. and the E.U., this body of law is being adopted by nations around the world to create a uniform legal infrastucture for global trade in ideas, information, knowledge.

4. While the law’s way of defining authorship—i.e., as the production of a unique “original” work -- seems straightforward and unproblematic to most lawyers and legal scholars, in literary studies in the wake of structuralism and post structuralism we view our creative work in more “intertextual” terms –we view it as more dependent on the work of others than such a definition suggests. We may work with stone, in oils on canvas, with pen and paper, or pixels -- whatever our medium of preference, we invariably draw on the work of others in our creative activities, if not contemporaries working in close proximity, then those working at some temporal remove, whom we may or may not acknowledge as “influences.” In other words, our creative work is largely derivative, it is in an important sense collective, corporate, and collaborative.

5. For most of human history this derivative aspect of new work was believed to contribute to, if not virtually to constitute the work’s value. Writers, like other artisans, considered their task to lie in the re-working of traditional materials according to principles and techniques preserved and handed down to them in rhetoric and poetics. It was only in the course of the eighteenth century, and then chiefly in Western Europe, that an alternative vision of creative production focusing on the endowments and accomplishments of the individual genius emerged. In a sharp departure from the self-understanding of writers of previous generations, authors in the new “Romantic” mode began to view their task to lie in innovation – to lie in breaking with inherited tradition to create something utterly new, unique, in a word, “original.” Their heroic vision caught on and it mystified the creative process, obscuring the reliance of these writers on the work of others.

6. If time permitted, I would examine with you some of the texts in which 19th century European authors --from Herder and Goethe in Germany, to Wordsworth and Coleridge in England, and Victor Hugo in France – propounded this individualistic new vision of creative activity. (I’ve brought copies of one such text along, which I can distribute: Wordsworth’s poem, “Daffodils,” one of the most famous English poems if only because in the 19th and 20th centuries pretty much every school child throughout the British empire was required to commit it to memory.) But in the interest of time I will fast-forward to show you very briefly how their vision of authorship as a solitary originary activity operates in copyright.

7. In a nutshell, the author construct at the center of copyright is at once too broad and too narrow: it both a) impedes the kinds of re-working of existing texts that we know to be essential to the creation of new knowledge and b) permits re-uses that most of us would consider objectionable. Two sets of images will illustrate. The first set is from the U.S. court case of Rogers v. Koons (1992) and the second from the Australian case of Bulun Bulun v. R & T Textiles (1998).

8. In the first set of images you see, first, a black and white photo, commissioned by the owners of a large litter of shepherd puppies, which the photographer Art Rogers later commissioned to a greeting card company for reproduction on a postcard. In the second image is a life-size polychrome sculpture by the American appropriation artist Jeff Koons that was designed to criticize the culture evoked by the Rogers photo. By transforming the family portrait into a three-dimensional Disney-like cartoon tableaux – note the slick modeling and the added colors and little flowers -- Koons aimed to expose, to make us see the portrait’s banality. His sculpture is a scathing critique of the banality of contemporary life in the U.S. Americans value this kind of critique -- it is one of the freedoms of speech guaranteed by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, when Rogers sued Koons for copyright infringement Koons lost the lawsuit, and he had to destroy this sculpture and pay heavy damages. Why? To the court the sculpture was a flagrant “piracy”: instead of investing the energy and imagination to create something new and original Koons had taken the easy way out and simply copied Rogers’ photo.

9. This case is an instance, an extreme instance, to be sure, of the trend in copyright today to curtail our right (which is also a necessity!) to dip into and select from existing texts and meanings to create new texts and meanings -- without first seeking permission from and (often) paying a licensing fee to the text’s “owner.” The trend is being driven by corporations -- by entertainment giants like Walt Disney and computer software giants like Microsoft – seeking to get as big a bang as possible for their buck in an increasingly global economy.

10. Even as our author-fixated copyright system is impeding creative re-uses of our cultural texts that we deem essential, I said that it simultaneously exposes another body of texts to re-uses that seem exploitative and objectionable. This may be seen by turning to the second set of images that I mentioned from the Australian case of Bulun Bulun v. R & T Textiles. The textile company that re-used an Australian Aboriginal tribe’s sacred design to produce upscale T-shirts did not need to worry about being sued for copyright infringement. An individual, Bulun Bulun, painted the design, to be sure, but he did so at the behest of his tribe in strict accordance with the rules and techniques preserved and handed down to him in tribal custom. His people thus view the painting as a communally authored object that belongs to them collectively. Lacking an author in the romantic sense – i.e., lacking an individual originator – the painting is simply invisible to copyright law. As such, it is available for any and all re-uses, even those as insulting to the tribe as T-shirts.

11. I’ve covered a lot of ground – in none of the detail my topic requires, or deserves. What I hope nevertheless to have conveyed to you is its significance – something of the mischief copyright is doing right now. I’ve suggested that an antiquated eurocentric understanding of the nature of creative production, or “authorship,” at the center of this body of law bears important responsibility for this mischief. It follows, as I see it, that literary theorists need to take note. Copyright is furnishing the legal infrastructure of our rapidly globalizing information economy. As experts on creative activity, who understand that it is intertextual – i.e., that it is essentially collective and collaborative -- we should not leave copyright to legal experts and policy makers but should rather join in the conversation that is working to reshape this body of law -- for better or for worse. China’s long, rich history of communal ownership of ideas puts those attending this conference in a position to make an important contribution to this conversation.

T. S. Eliot, Asia and Newly Found Evidence

艾略特, 亚洲和新发现的证据

By Tatsushi Narita (Visiting Fellow, Harvard University; Professor Emeritus, Nagoya City University)

成田興史 哈佛大学访问学者;日本名古屋市立大学名誉教授

1.新找到的证据

2.爱略特家族与路易斯安娜博览会的关系

3.爱略特与菲律宾的伊哥洛特人

4.爱略特与其创作于1905年的短篇小说《当国王的人》(The Man Who was King

假设之一:青年爱略特于1905年创作的短篇小说《当国王的人》(The Man Who was King)主要讲述非西方文化在太平洋岛屿上的兴盛,值得注意的是,在看似“原始的”社会里自治原则被刻画成是十分有效的。假设之二:普遍认为爱略特在哈佛大学期间开始关注人类学问题,但是早在那之前他就开始认真思考文化他者问题。1904年世界博览会在圣路易斯举办,爱略特参观了“原始的” 伊哥洛特人村落等地。正如他在这部短篇小说中所表现的那样,爱略特着重探讨了当时颇受关注的起源于菲律宾群岛问题的话题——“白人的负担”。该短篇小说集中探讨了菲律宾群岛是否应获得自主和自治权的问题。

5.由家庭环境推演出来的艾略特和文化他者之间的早期联系

6.新的假设:艾略特对文化他者思想的内在化

(1) 如何理解现实:多年后,当艾略特思考诗歌特征的时候,此前对伊哥洛特人村落的考察引发他思考“土著人是如何思考和舞蹈的?”这一问题。这个话题是形成他自己的理论的基础。⑵文化他者思想的内在化:一个独特的结论由此产生:艺术家和野蛮人在对现实的理解上有共同之处。遭遇文化他者问题,艾略特得以更加深刻地理解他此前不得不面对的问题,并将这种深化的理解内化于自己的观点。

NEWLY LOCATED EVIDENCE

Henry Ware Eliot Scrapbooks housed by the Missouri Historical Museum, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

New evidence preserved in the Museum located, evidence called “Louisiana Purchase Exposition: Stockholder’s Coupon Ticket,” a special ticket issued by the Exposition Company to Thomas Stearns Eliot. Inside the front cover we find his photograph attached; at the bottom of the back cover the signature “Thos. S. Eliot.” While the number of coupons originally provided were fifty, there is only one ticket as is seen today.

Another copy of the Stockholder’s Coupon Ticket issued to Henry Ware Eliot, TSE’s father.

THE ELIOT FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN THE LOUSIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION (LPE)

Photograph of William Greenleaf Eliot, TSE’s grandfather exhibited at the Palace of Education

Newly published book by TSE’s mother, on exhibit at the Palace of Education

Washington University Exhibits

Manual Training School Exhibits

Charlotte Eliot and her Proposal for Young Women

LPE Company rented the whole campus of Washington University’s new campus for purposes of using it as their Headquarters and others. Henry Ware Eliot, serving on the Board of Directors, Washington University

(Cf. Mississippi Valley Sanitary Fair organized by William Greenleaf Eliot)

A plaque constructed on the new campus for the memory of William Greenleaf Eliot, founder of Washington University

An unobstructed view from the spot about 100 years ago

TSE AND IGOROT PEOPLE, THE PHILIPPINES

Map of the Philippine Archipelago

The Igorot hill tribes of the Philippines, the Benguets, Ifugao, Bontocs, Apayaos and Kalingas

Figure: The Philippine Exposition (a pamphlet), Henry’s Scrapbook item

A virtual transpacific crossings to the Walled City of Manila and then further north to the Igorot people region

Map of the Philippine Exposition, a special exposition co-hosted with the LPE

Figure: “Igorot Village: Headhunters of the Philippines” (a pamphlet)

Figure: Souvenir: Igorot Village (a pamphlet), Henry’s Scrapbook item

Figure: A page of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, March 27, 1905

Figure: “The Adoration of the Igorrote” (a newspaper clipping), Henry’s Scrapbook item

TSE AND “THE MAN WHO WAS KING” (1905)

The short story “The Man Who Was King”

In 1905 the young Eliot wrote "The Man Who Was King." Set in Polynesia, it depicts an interaction of Matahiva islanders and an intruder Magruder. Islanders at first assume Magruder as a god-send and inaugurated him as king. However, because of Magruder's incompetence not only as a king but as a human being, islanders negate the assumption they had initially made and come to expel him. Of particular significance is that Polynesians are represented as maintaining the health of society. In contrast, Magruder is depicted as far removed from western civility and civilization.

Hypothesis 1: Composition of “The Man Who Was King”

“The Man Who Was King” is concerned with the extent to which a non-Western culture which flourished on a Pacific island did enjoy cultural health of its own. Significantly, in the seemingly “primitive” society the principle of self-government is portrayed as being fully operational. In contract, the story exposes the limitations of Magruder and by extension what he symbolizes, civilization he sands for.

Hypothesis 2: TSE on Self-Rule

It has been widely established that Eliot formed anthropological concern during his Harvard years. However, long before the Harvard period Eliot had had a serious confrontation with Cultural Others in St. Louis.

When, in 1904, the World’s Fair came to St. Louis, he visited “primitive” Igorot Village and others. And, as is evidenced by “The Man Who Was King,” he seriously addressed himself to the then sensational topic “The White Man’s Burden,” a topic arising out of the Philippine problem.

The short story focuses attention on the Philippine issue whether the Philippine should be given the immediate chance of self-determination and self-governance or not.

EARLIEST CONNECTIONS BETWEEN TSE AND CULTURAL OTHERS DEDUCED FROM FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES

Figure: “You are a Darned Nuisance” (Henry’s Scrapbook item)

Henry’s interest in the Philippine issues: Uncle Sam as an upperhand civilizing force criticized.

Figure: “I Once Acted Like That” (Henry’s Scrapbook item)

Henry’s interest in the Philippine issues: Advice given by an Indian to the Filipino who is taking arms, dashing to the war.

Figure: “German Idea of ‘Native Freedom’” (Henry’s Scrapbook item)

Henry criticizing the German idea of ‘Native Freedom’

Figure: “Many Parodys [sic.] on The White Man’s Burden” (source: TSE’s Fireside)

TSE’s precocious interest in the Philippines issues at age ten.

Figure: Igorot People’s Gangsa Dance

Cf. “Next came the two men with the litter and after that a little mob of men beating bhghons (a cross between tin pan and gong) and chanting monotonously” (emphasis mine).”

Figure: Igorot People’s Gangsa Dance

Cf. “Poetry begins, I dare say, with a savage beating a drum in a jungle” (TSE in 1933). TSE and his development of idea of poetry by his internalization of the way how natives think and dance.

A NEW HYPOTHESIS

・“The Man Who Was King”:

Matahiva islanders as Cultural Others for TSE

Philippine people as Cultural Others for TSE

A New Hypothesis: TSE and his internalization of the mind of Cultural Others:

(1)How to Grasp Reality: Years later, when TSE pondered much about the nature of poetry, “how natives think and dance,” a topic arising out of his Igorot Village explorations was a basis on which to formulate a theory of his own.

Cf. “The artist, I believe, is more primitive, as well as more civilized, than his contemporaries, his experience is deeper than civilization, and he only uses the phenomenon of civilization in expressing it. Primitive instincts and the acquired habits of ages are confounded in the ordinary man” (T. S. Eliot, “Tarr,” Egoist, 5, Sept. 1918, p. 106 (emphasis mine).

(2) Internalization of the mind of Cultural Others:

A unique conclusion emerged that an artist and a savage share the common point in the comprehension of reality.

The confrontation with cultural others provided TSE with an important occasion when he deepened and internalized understanding of what he had to first confront with. For TSE, Matahiva islanders and Philippine people represented Asian Cultural Others.

文化研究中的阶级轨迹 陆扬 复旦大学中文系

提要:阶级和种族、性别一样,是文化研究的三大母题之一。文化研究伯明翰传统如威廉斯、E. P. 汤普森等人,历来关注阶级的分析。马克思曾经预言资本主义必将在阶级斗争中崩溃,为发达国家的产业工人所埋葬。但是时至今日,马克思的阶级预言并没有实现。资本主义面接自身的重重危机应对有方,正在有条不紊图谋新的发展,目前还看不出日薄西山的迹象。相反,工人阶级本身的存在形态,反倒愈益变得复杂迷离起来。在今天全球化的后工业社会里,阶级对立消失了吗?或者说,它是以怎样的新的形式表现出来?这是文化研究关注的一个焦点。

非文本诗学研究个案分析 高小康 中山大学文学院

禅的思维特征及其表达方式 邱紫华 华中师范大学文学院

提要:本文分两个部分。首先,指出了禅的思维特征是意会思维。禅所主张的“不立文字、教外别传”的宗旨是意会思维形式的经典表达;本文从禅的意会思维的体感性,体验性,不可言传而难以把握,以及经验层面上的可操作性、可靠性等四个方面,揭示了禅的意会认识的特点。其次,本文分析了禅的思维中所蕴含的辩证法、悖论、相对主义等思维特征,证明了禅的意会思维同审美思维有密切的联系。

审美意识形态辨 郑伟 北京师范大学文学院

提要:从马克思、恩格斯对“意识形态”概念的使用来看,意识形态主要不是一个“否定性”的概念,而且也不是所谓的“综合思想体系”,因此“审美意识形态”这一命题是能够成立的,是符合马克思主义基本文学观念的。“审美意识形态”这一理论目前研究得还不够,主要是审美与意识形态的融合问题以及意识形态在文学作品中的存在方式问题的研究都有待加强,西方马克思主义的距离说以及意识形态生产的理论可以提供很好的理论借鉴。

文学本质论批判 王进 广州大学人文学院中文系

提要:文学本质问题是一种文学理论认知体系的逻辑起点,它决定了文学思维展开的方式与效能。中国当代文学理论长期纠缠于审美意识形态论,并被作为文艺学第一原理写进了大学的文艺学教科书。本文认为这是一个错误的理论,它表现在三个方面:一是文学理解的美学化问题,其实质是用哲学观念代替了文学问题的思考;二是意识形态学说的普泛化问题,其实质是用国家意识形态的统制和高压扭曲了文学思想;三是“审美”和“意识形态论”又内在地包含了“现代性”的题中应有之意,这样就把文学与时俱进地绑在了唯新是尚的进化论快车上。本文主张文艺学作为真正的文学问题的探讨应当是非审美的、非意识形态的和非现代性的,中国新的文艺学原理应当是对人类文学智慧的全面吸收,是对中西古今文学理解包括马克思主义的全面打通。而不应当是对经典作家只言片语的浅薄发挥。在这个意义上,我们对文学的重新定义是:文学是展示人类个体生命意识自由表达的文化想象形态和文本创造形态。

Abstract: The question of the essence of literature constitutes the logical basis of any theoretic and cognitive system of literature, which determines the way and function of literary thinking. The contemporary literary theory of China has long been obsessed with the Theory of Aesthetic Ideology, which has been incorporated into the college textbook as the primary principle the theory of literature and art. However, there are three mistakes in this theory. First, it approaches literature in an aesthetic way, which in itself replaces the thinking over literature with philosophic concepts. Second, it universalizes the theory of ideology, which virtually distorts literary thinking with the control and pressure of the state ideology. Third, both the theory of “aestheticism” and “ideology” have internalized the essential spirit of “Modernism”, binding literature with the express bus of Evolutionism which gives novelty the greatest priority. It is argued that the real exploration of literary issues should be non-aesthetic, non-ideological and non-modernistic. The theory of literature and art in China should absorb all the literary wisdom of human beings and thread through the understanding of literature at all times and in all countries, not just develop the piecemeal words of some classic writers superficially. In this sense, we may get a new definition of literature, that is, the cultural imaginative as well as textual creative form exhibiting the human beings’ individual sense of life and free expression.

文学理论发展与学术认同机制 李健 南京大学文化艺术教育中心

提要:从新时期到新世纪,中国的文学理论经历了充满机遇和挑战的发展之路。30年来,对西方话语的引进与改造、对传统文论的继承与创新、对当代现实的关切与回应,构成了中国文学理论自我发展的三重历史语境。以此为依据,中国文学理论在其发展过程中不断遭遇到学术资源的认同与再生问题。在一定意义上,文学理论的发展,正是以学术场中的认同机制为保障的。首先,学术认同的对话机制是文学理论走出自我封闭世界的基本前提。只有自觉地与西方对话、与传统对话、与现实对话,文学理论才有可能接触、吸收、消化新鲜血液,并生发出适应时代发展的创新理论。其次,学术认同的转换机制是文学理论自我发展的必要手段。我们可以看到,不同语境中的学术资源,其话语转换是一个复杂的动态过程。在这个过程中,需要审慎地面对学术资源如何“翻译”、怎样“误读”乃至不断“滥用”等问题。再次,学术认同的反思机制是文学理论得以良性发展的重要保障。这种反思来自两个方面:一方面,我们要对自身的理论需求有准确的认识,不能将学术认同简单等同为学术观念或方法的“表演秀”;另一方面,还需要对我们与之对话、力图转换的理论资源进行必要的反思,只有真正理解了这些资源的理论内涵,才能保证这种认同是行之有效的。最后,学术认同的再生机制则是文学理论自我发展的目标所在。任何理论的发展都同时是一个理论再生的过程,文学理论也不例外。中国文学理论最近三十年的发展历程一再说明,缺乏理论再生功能、无法生成适应时代发展的创新理论的学术研究,是没有生命力的。总之,中国文学理论的未来发展,仍然需要面对三重基本的历史语境,确保学术认同机制的顺畅运转,则是我们进一步推进其良性发展的必然要求。

AbstractFrom the New Era to the New Century, Chinese literary theory has developed with challenges and opportunities. In the past 30 years, by introducing and adapting western discourses, inheriting and innovating traditional literary theory, and focusing on and reacting to contemporary reality, it has advanced in the triple historical contexts. Due to this, Chinese literary theory has continuously encountered the issues of identity and regeneration of academic resources. In a certain sense, the development of literary theory is based on the system of identity in academic field. First, the dialogic system of academic identity is essential for literary theory to break away from a self-sealed world. Only through a conscious dialogue with the West, tradition and reality, literary theory may approach, absorb and integrate new ideas and generate creatively theories adapted to contemporary reality. Second, the transformative system of academic identity is a necessary means for the development of literary theory. As we know, the discursive transformation of academic resources in different contexts is a complicated and dynamic process, in which an important issue should be focused, that is, how academic resources are translated, misread and misused. Third, the reflexive system of academic identity is to ensure a benign development of literary theory. The reflection is on the following two aspects: on one hand, we should have an appropriate recognition of our theoretical needs and avoid taking academic identity as “a performative show” of academic ideas or methods; on the other hand, we should reflect on the theoretical resources we intend to make dialogue with and transform, as the identification can be ensured only with a true understanding of the resources. Finally, the regenerating system of academic identity is the aim of the development of literary theory. It is obvious that the development of a theory is always a process of theoretical regeneration. Literary theory is not an exception. The development of Chinese literary theory in the past 30 years does show that academic research without theoretical regeneration or adaptation to the age is lifeless. Therefore, it is necessary to face the triple historical contexts, to ensure the smooth operation of the system of academic identity in order to enhance the benign development of Chinese literary theory.

时代思想气象与文艺学研究问题 程勇 鲁东大学汉语言文学院

提要:本文认为,与20世纪90年代以来中国思想气象孱弱无力、缺乏刚健精神相应,中国的文艺学研究也存在着思想的缺失和学术的萎缩。有各种各样层出不穷的知识生产,却少见对时代问题有深刻洞察力的文艺学思想创造。文艺学研究的整体性的飘浮状况无法承担其应尽使命,既没有给世界贡献与众不同的理论、思想和学术,也无法确立一种与时代核心价值相适应的雄健正大的审美气象。这与研究主体思想取境偏低与思想方法偏失有深刻关联,思想取境偏低体现为问题意识淡漠、历史意识匮乏、价值关怀虚化,思想方法上的偏失则主要体现为重演绎、轻归纳;重技术、轻思想;重本质、轻现象。文章提出,中国文艺学必须思想,而且思想必须严肃,这首先是因为中国需要在世界上发出自己的声音,其次是因为当下中国的精神生活出了问题。严肃的文艺学思想创造必须以中国为根基,以当下中国精神生活为轴心,必须坚持价值优先原则,唯此才能为重建中国的思想世界做出自己的贡献,无愧于“实现中华民族伟大复兴”的时代要求。

Abstract: This paper think that corresponding with the weak and incompetent thinking atmosphere of China from the nineties of the 20th century, the study of literary theory also has deficiency of thought and contraction of learning. There are various knowledge production of literary theory which are emerging in an endless stream, but lack of the creation of thought which has deep insight to the problems of the times. The floating situation of the study as a whole can not make it take on heavy responsibilities, neither make a different contribution of theory, thought and learning to the world, nor establish a vigorous and justifiable aesthetic atmosphere which conform to the core values of the times. All theses questions relate to two aspects of researcher, the first is their mental choice of thinking state is on the low side, the second is their thinking methods has some deviations and errors. The former may be viewed from three aspects, they are nonchalance of sense of questioning, deficiency of sense of history and emptiness of value solicitude. The latter may be viewed from three aspects, which attach importance to deduction, technique and essence than induction, thought and phenomena. We advance that the study of literary theory of China must think, and thought must be solemn. Why does this? Firstly, China needs to give her voice in the world. Secondly, there are many problems existing in contemporary Chinese spiritual life. The solemn creation of literary theory must take China as thinking foundation, take contemporary Chinese spiritual life as thinking axis, and must adhere to principles of value priority. Only we do those thinking work the study of literary theory can contribute its share to the rebuilding of Chinese thinking world, also prove worthy of the needs of the times which entitled accomplishing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

1992年以来文艺理论研究的三个阶段 江守义 安徽师范大学文学院

提要:1992年以来,我们的文艺理论建设大致经历了清算历史影响、融入外来思潮、建设文论体系这样三个阶段,从这三个阶段的情况看,当前的文论建设仍然处于一种摸索阶段。

Abstract: Since 1992, our construction about the theory of literature has roughly gone through three stages: clear historical effect, merge foreign ideological trends and construct theoretical systems of literature. And from all these three stages, construction about the theory of literature at present is still in groping stage.

新世纪文学批评研究概评 余三定 湖南理工学院中文系

提要:进入新世纪以来,学者们对于文学批评的研究,呈现出多样丰富并不断走向深入的发展态势,取得了丰硕的成果。这其中既有对文学批评历史的总结,也有对当下的文学批评的探讨,既有对“网络批评”、“媒体批评”、“学院批评”、“文化批评”、“酷评”等批评式样的具体分析,也有对文学批评的一般性问题,如批评的规范(标准、原则)、批评家的修养、文学批评的命运等问题的深入研究。

①关于网络批评。《南方文坛》2001年第3期崔红楠《穿过我的网络你的手》提到了“网络批评”。崔主要由自己的上网经验描述了网络批评的自由与驳杂。20016月北京市文联研究部在天津举办“网络批评、媒体批评与主流批评研讨会”,在这次会上提出了网络批评、媒体批评和主流批评(学院批评)三分天下的看法,网络批评的概念正式提了出来并从媒体批评中分离出来。

②关于媒体批评。媒体批评或叫传媒批评,一般指由大众传媒主导并在大众传媒展开的文艺批评。自2000年始,便不断有人对媒体批评提出质疑和批评。

③关于学院批评。蔡翔认为:20世纪80年代是作家和批评家的蜜月期,当时的青年作家和批评家能够互相对话和启发,形成强烈的互补。90年代以后,文学批评学院化了。(参见《当代学者、评论家谈中国当代文学》,载《中华读书报》1999929)当初,“学院批评”的提出具在积极的意义。孟繁华曾说:它是对庸俗社会学批评、对文学批评政治化的来自学院的另一种声音。这一观念的提出极大地改变了当代文学批评的方式和格局。文学批评的学术性得到了空前的加强,有效地抵制了“非批评”的侵入(《前沿批评的问题》,《中华读书报》2001326)。

④关于文化批评。文化批评最早起源于20世纪80年代的美国,大概于90年代初进入我国。它的引进使我国的文学批评具有了不同的视角和方法,并为文学批评的发展事来了积极的影响。近年来,文化批评受到了不少学者的关注和重视。

⑤关于其他类型的批评。文学批评理论界还对其他类型的批评形式进行了广泛的研究,主要的有:A酷评;B生态批评;C读者批评。

⑥关于文学批评(学科)如何建设及一般性问题的讨论.进入新世纪以来,对于文学批评(学科)如何建设及文学批评一般性问题的讨论是文学批评研究的一个重要方面,学者们在这一方面的研究非常活跃。

中国现代文论精神之发掘传承——文学现状与三十年文论建设及其策略的一点思考

金雅 中国社会科学院文学所 杭州师范大学人文学院

提要:当前中国文学生态及其特征的变化,文学消费市场旨趣的突出,给中国文论的发展提出了现实的课题。文学传媒由书面与印刷媒介转向电子与大众传媒,文学生产主体由专门作家到文化大众,文学接受主体由美的崇尚者到需求各异的消费大众。与此相呼应的是:文学内容呈现信息化趋势伴生着绝对化、庸俗化倾向,文学情趣呈现生活化趋势伴生着平庸化、肤浅化倾向,文学形式呈现技术化趋势伴生着表面化、形式化倾向,文学活动呈现开放性趋势伴生着随性化、任意化倾向。文学的新发展令人喜忧参半。而消费市场旨趣的泛滥,正是中国文学在当前所面临的最大挑战。无度地追逐娱乐和宣泄,盲目地崇尚信息与技术,使得文学的情感与想象、诗意与韵味在弱化,文学批判的力量与理想的召唤在弱化。

面对当前中国文学和审美趣味的新势态,我以为,中国现代文论在以下三个方面的精神品格值得引起关注:突出的人生论品格与深切的人生关怀,鲜明的诗性品格与浓郁的理想精神,强烈的文化批判意识与积极的理论新构意识。

中国现代文论萌生于上个世纪初年,古今中西文化的交融撞击与中华民族的腥风血雨熔铸了其宏阔的视野、高度的责任感与使命感。中国现代文论拥有一批富有实绩的理论家,如王国维、梁启超、郭沫若、田汉、朱光潜、宗白华、丰子恺、周作人等;拥有一批富有特色的理论成果,如梁启超的趣味理论,朱光潜的情趣理论,宗白华的艺术情调与意境理论等。

建国以后,由于研究立场、意识、方法、惯性、学养等问题,对于中国现代文论的发掘整理少而浅,其优秀传统未能有效地发掘传承,民族文论的血脉在新文论创构中也未有效地贯通。

新时期“三十年”来,马列文论、西方文论、古代文论等研究均取得了重要的实绩。中国现代文论承上启下的学术史地位及其现代性特征也逐渐引起学界关注,研究取得了新的拓展。但从整体上看,中国现代文论研究的实绩与其自身面貌还存在着明显的距离。

中国现代文论是铸古今中西之说为我所用的一种实验与实践。其许多重要理论成果正是中国古代文论现代转换的实绩。没有马列文论、西方文论等新的理论资源,中国当代文论难以涅槃;而试图从古典文论直接跳进到当代文论,又必然使中国文论缺乏贯通的血脉,同样难以顺利地新生。接续现代文论传统,也使我们有了必要的借鉴,可避免不必要的弯路。

中国现代文论生动而具个性的理论学说需要文化的学理的修养,也需要生命的融入与哲学的根基。接续中国现代文论的传统,打通中国文论发展演化的历史轨迹,在新的高度上将中西古今各种文论学说的精华予以吸纳化用,而创成针对中国文学、文论、文化之现实,具有民族品格、民族特色、时代特征的理论新说,随着新世纪的帷幕拉开,必将成为中国当代文论建设的重要课题和可以期待的成果。

AbstractThe ecosystem and characteristic of Chinese literature is changing at present, the commercial interest of Chinese literature is outstanding. This has put forward the realistic subject for development of Chinese literature theory. The media of literature is turned with printing media to the electron and masses' media writtenly, literature producers are from the special writer to general masses, and its accepters are from the aesthetical advocators to the consumers with different demand.The ones that worked in concert with this are: the content of literature have been presenting the information-based tendency with absolutization and philistinism, the interesting of iterature have been appearing the inclination of living and superficialling,literature form have been appearin technicalization with formalization, the literature activity wearing kinds of arbitrariness. This tendency makes us happy and worried half-and-half. And the overflowing of the commercial interest of literature is exactly the greatest challenges faced at present of Chinese literature. Chasing after the amusement and catharsis inordinately and upholding information and technology blindly make the literature’s sensibility,imagination, poetry and its charm lessen, and so do the strength of literature’s animadvent and the summons to ideal.

To the new tendency of Chinese literature, we should pay more attention to the three spiritual characteristics of Chinese Modern Literature Theory: outstanding with careing for life, strong poeticizing and ideal spirit, rich consciousness of the cultural criticism ang the theoretical construction.

Chinese Modern Literature Thoery sprouted in the early years of last century. The blending of the ancient and modern culture in China and western countries with the all kinds of hardships suffered by Chinese have cast its great and wide visual field, highly responsibility and assignment. There were a lot of accomplishment theorists in China, such as Wang Guowei, Liang Qichao, Guo Moruo, Tian Han, Zhu Guangqian, Zong Baihua, Feng Zikai, Zhou zuoren and so forth. We also had the achievements of characteristic literature theories, e.g., Liang Qichao’s theory of taste, Zhu Guangqian’s thoery of sentiment, Zong Baihua’s theory of artistic conception,etc.

Afer our new country building up, the excavation and trim for Chinese Modern Literature Thory were little and simple because of the problems such as the research standpoint ,consciousness, measures, inertia and attainments.It made the tradition of Chinese Literature Thoery ruptured seriously.

When the new era came, people in knowledge circle paid attention to the connecting link between the preceding and the following science history status, modern characteristics and achievements of Chinese Literature Thoery, and they attained a series of new accomplishments.But looking at the whole, there still exists the notable distance between the researching achievements and the achievements the

Chinese Literature Thoery really has.

Without the new thoery resources as Western Literature Thoery, and so as Chinese Ancient Literature Thoery. And the try to plunge into the Chinese Modern Literature Theory from the Chinese Classical Literature Thoery directly will make Chinese Literature Thoery inevitablely lack of run-through pulse. Chinese Literature Thoery itself is a kind of experiment and practice to make use of the casting of the ancient and modern, the home’s and abroad’s Literature Thoery. Inheriting the Modern Literature’s tradition offer us the necessary use for reference and shun from the needless detour.

The vivid and individuality of Chinese Modern Literature Thoery needs the achievements of culture and knowledge, the melting of life and the basement of philosophy. Inheriting the tradition of Chinese Modern Literature Thoery, getting through the evolution of it ,absorbing and adopting the elites of all kinds of literature theories from a higher point, and then setting up a new thoery with the national moral character, the national characteristic and the time characteristic aiming at the realism of Chinese literature,literature thoery and culture. With the new century arrives, this kind of thoery will certainly to become the theme of Chinese Moderm Thoery Constructioon and the anticipating achievements.

主体性·主体间性·后主体性——中国当代文艺学的三元结构 苏宏斌 浙江大学中文系

提要:主体性范畴的引入是新时期中国文艺学研究所取得的最大成就。它一方面导致了文学主体论的产生,另一方面又促使认识论文艺观从机械反映论发展到审美反映论。主体性理论本身是西方近代认识论哲学的产物,在现代思想中业已受到广泛的质疑和解构,但由于它契合了我国上个世纪八十年代思想解放的需要,因此成为推动文艺学发展的核心动力。

主体间性理论出现于上个世纪九十年代初,它既是对于主体性理论的合理补充,又是一种实质性的超越。近代的主体性理论存在两种倾向:一是把主体当作类或者社会,否定主体的个体性;二是把主体看作纯粹的个体,由此导致唯我论。这两种倾向都只有通过引入主体间性理论才能加以克服。不过,主体间性理论同时蕴涵着对于主体性哲学的解构力量,因为当主体间性或交互主体性被看作主体性的前提和基础时,就意味着主体不再是独立的实体。这时,后主体性或后现代思想的视野必然崭露出来。在文艺学研究中,这一理论将不再把文学看作作家个体创造活动的产物,而是视为作家与他人交往活动的产物和中介。

后主体性理论意味着对主体性理论的彻底消解。这种消解的背景在于,近代思想中作为社会性与个体性统一体的个人形象陷于瓦解,取而代之的是后现代个体。从一方面来看,后现代个体意味着对于社会性的彻底排除,意味着个体只关注自身,不再承担任何外部的社会责任,因为任何这类责任或实体都被看作宏大叙事的产物而加以抛弃;从另一方面来看,后现代个体又意味着对个体真实性的否定,因为自我、内在性、灵魂、深度等也被视为形而上学的虚构。后主体性理论既不关注作家创作的内在机制,也不探讨作家与他人之间的交往关系,而是以文本之间的交互影响关系(互文性)来取而代之。与此相应,文化研究也日渐侵蚀着文学理论的空间。

这三种理论视界在中国当代文艺学中错杂并陈,无法相互取代,从而营造出了一种多元的理论景观。这种景观与中国当代文化与文明的多元性特征恰相呼应,因而带有一定的必然性。

The putting forward of theory of subjectivity is the main achievement of Chinese literary theory in New-Period, since it brought about the epistemological literary theory developed into dynamic theory of reflection from mechanical theory of reflection. Although subjectivity is a category of west modern philosophy, which has been queried and dispelled by contemporary philosophy, it is corresponding to the needing of Chinese mind liberation in 80th of 20 century, so it became the main power to bring about the development of Chinese literary theory.

The theory of intersubjectivity was put forward at the beginning of last century’s 90th, which is both the complement and surpass to the theory of subjectivity. There are two tendencies in the theory of subjectivity: on the one hand, subject is regarded as mankind or sociality, which denied the personality of subject; on the other hand, subject is regarded as pure personality, which must lead to solipsism. Both of these two defects can be conquered by the theory of subjectivity, since sociality and personality are both constructed in the communication among subjects. Nevertheless, subject may also be deconstructed by the theory of intersubjectivity, because subject will no longer be an entity while it is thought to be founded above intersubjectivity. In this opinion, literature should be regarded as the result of communication among the author and other subjects, instead of the individual creation of the author.

The theory of postsubjectivity is the outcome of postmodernism, and it means the thorough deconstruction of subject. The reason of this propose is that subject has been replaced by postmodern person in nowadays, which will no longer undertake any responsibility from society. Such theory neither studies the inner process, nor researches the connect between author and the others, instead, it pays close attention to the connect among texts.

All of these tendencies exist side by side in Chinese contemporary literary theory, and non of them can replace the others. This pluralistic scene of theory is just consistent with Chinese contemporary civilization.

文化诗学方法中的三个问题 周欣展 南京大学

提要:文化诗学是上世纪80年代提出的新概念,不过,在广阔的文化视野下,或者说紧密联系多种文化因素来研究文学,这种方法中外自古有之,在现代中国的文学史领域,这种方法在实践中得到普遍而自觉地运用,并且取得出色的成绩。

古代文化诗学方法主要是文史哲综合研究学术传统的自然体现,晚清以来,文化诗学方法广泛学习借鉴西学成果,增添了西学的变数。在这种情况下,根据已往的经验教训,本文认为文化诗学方法有三个问题需要妥善解决。

其一是诊治文化冲击错觉和文化分裂症。所谓文化冲击错觉是指晚清以来在西方的军事入侵和政治经济压迫之下而形成的中国文化传统落后而有害,而西方文化先进而有益的认识。所谓文化分裂是指在西方文化的冲击下,中国文化保持了数千年的平衡状态被打破,原来可以调和共处的不同价值观念和社会矛盾开始尖锐到再也不能互相容忍并存的地步,非要用建立新的平衡统一体的方式给予彻底的解决不可。所谓文化分裂症是指在文化分裂的前提下,对于传统文化肯定与否定的错置。

其二是树立自觉的学术谱系意识,努力继承学术传统。在拥有悠久文化传统的国家或地区,学术上也会有独特传统。后来的学术研究都要在传统中起步、成长、发展,脱离和排斥传统,其发展就会先天不足、后天失调,乃至迷失方向,丧失自我。俄国形式主义就是自觉地继承亚里斯多德以来的西方形式美学传统的一个优秀成果。可为例证。

其三是辩证处理求同求异的关系。五四新文化运动以来,国内一度盛行唯科学主义,其后遗症至今仍未消除。唯科学主义中所包含的理性精神对中国人来说是具有高度价值的新思想。在文学研究领域追求文学普遍规律,对于中国文学理论的建设发展也起到积极的作用但是,如果忽视人文学科与自然科学的差别,忽视不同文化的差异,就往往会在追求抽象、普遍的定律的同时,忽视对作品的独创性、对作家心灵的深刻感受。这样得出的规律往往经不起检验。所以,从人人皆知的相异处求同自然难能可贵;而中外文化之异也并非一望可知,也需深入研究。故只有将文学理论的研究建立在中国文化和中国文学独特性的基础之上,方能避免肤泛之论或是似而非。

AbstractCultural Poetics is a new concept sprang up in the 80s of the last century. However, under a broader cultural perspective, or to research the literature by closely linking a variety of cultural factors, this method has existed since ancient times both in China and abroad; In the field of Chinese literary history, this method has been widely and consciously used in practice and has achieved excellent results.

Ancient Cultural Poetics method is the natural reflection of the academic tradition embodied in the comprehensive study of literature, history and philosophy. Since the late Qing Dynasty, Cultural Poetics method has been absorbing western achievements, and therefore has been influenced by the western learning. Under this situation, taking into consideration of previous experiences and lessons, the author of this paper believes that three problems in Cultural Poetics method need to be solved properly.

The first is to diagnose and treat the cultural shock illusion and the cultural splitting.

The so-called cultural shock illusion refers to the misconception which had been formed under the military invasion and political and economic oppression by the west since the late Qing Dynasty that the Chinese cultural tradition is backward and harmful, while the western culture is advanced and useful,.

The so-called culture splitting means that, under the impact of western culture, the Chinese cultural balance which had been retained for thousands of years has been broken, the different values and social contradictions which had been reconcile the coexistent became so sharp that they could no longer co-exist or tolerate each other, and a thorough solution could not be reached but for the establishment of a new balance.

The so-called cultural splitting means, under the premise of the cultural fragmentation, the affirming and denying of the traditional culture has been misplaced.

The second is to establish a conscious academic pedigree awareness, and to make efforts to inherit the academic tradition.

In a country or region with a long cultural tradition, there must be a unique academic tradition. Any academic research must start, grow and develop in this tradition, and if breaking away from or rejecting the tradition, its development would suffer from congenitally and postnatal defects and even lose its direction and identity. Russian formalism, an outstanding achievement realized by consciously inheriting the western aesthetic tradition since Aristotle’s time, is a good example.

The third is to dialecticaly deal with the relationship "Seek for the Common" and "Seek for the Different"

Since the May 4th New Culture Movement, scientism was once prevalent in China, and its aftermath has not been eliminated till this day. The rational spirit included in Scientism is a valuable new idea to the Chinese people. The pursuit of universal law in Literary Studies has played a positive role in the construction and development of Chinese literary theory.

However, if we ignore differences between the humanities and natural sciences, overlook the differences between different cultures, we may neglect to perceive in depth the originality of works and the spirit of writers while we pursue the abstract and common law. The law obtained this way is usually unable to hold water.

Therefore, it is commendable to seek for the common from the well-known differences; And the differences between Chinese culture and the foreign culture can not be discovered so easily and need in depth study. Only by basing the literary theoretical studies on the foundation of Chinese culture as well as the unique nature of the Chinese literature, we may avoid being superficial or ambiguous.

现状、问题与趋势:现代性理论与中国文学研究 张光芒 南京大学中文系

提要:一、文学现代性研究的背景及现状:20世纪90年代后,大陆思想界各个领域普遍在寻找研究范式的转型之际,“现代性”问题迅速成为一大焦点问题,先是在思想文化领域,继之扩展至美学、文学研究领域。

二、文学现代性研究的前沿主题及其特征:1、左翼文学、十七年文学、文革文学是否具有现代性?从现代性的角度对左翼文学、十七年文学和文革文学重新进行价值评判和文学史叙述,可以说是现代性视角为重写文学史提供的最突出成果之一。2、现代性与20世纪中国文学思潮及作家作品研究。上述关于左翼、十七年、文革文学思潮的现代性探讨是学界最富有争议也最具有探索空间的话题。然而对一个阶段的文学指认离不开对文学发展的整体历程,离不开对各个文学发展阶段之间错综复杂关系的考察,因此,只有以历史的眼光和整体的眼光对20世纪文学思潮进行全盘考察,才能够更好地理解中国文学的现代性特征。3、文体现代性的生成及其特质。近两年,多家文学期刊以笔谈的形式探讨了媒体与中国现代文体的生成、演进、流变之间的深层关联,表现出研究者的自觉意识。4、中国文学的本土现代性及其建构。相对于前几年研究者普遍表现出的唯“现代性”是从的研究倾向,近两年研究者表现出强烈的反思意识。5、中国文学现代性的空间性。以往学界对进步的渴望,对现代性的焦虑压抑了对于中国现代性的空间意识的探讨,直到最近几年才逐渐有学者开始注意到更加具有本质意义的空间问题。6、身份认同:中国文学现代性研究的新路径。从身份认同角度出发就为我们切入现代性体验研究提供了又一条新的路径,关注人生的体验和感受恰恰也是文学研究的基点。7、底层叙述与对现代性话语的反思。近几年“底层文学”这一话题的涌现为反思现代性提供了一个独特的视角。

三、文学现代性研究存在的问题及其根源:1、对现代性概念理解的混乱驳杂。第一种情况表现为研究者含混使用“现代主义”、“现代化”、“现代性”等概念,将现代性等同于现代化和现代主义,缺乏对三者的仔细考辨。第二种情况表现为研究者对于现代性与传统性、现代性与后现代性在概念理解上存在分歧。2、惟启蒙现代性是从的研究倾向。我们发现,学界普遍形成了惟现代性是从的倾向,对现代性盲目推崇,缺乏对现代性的弊端以及内在悖论性的反思。3、以现代性理论遮蔽鲜活感性的文学现实。大而化之地僵化套用现代性理论,以现代性理论遮蔽鲜活、感性的文学现实。

四、关于文学现代性研究的趋势预测及其发展建议:1、在现代性的多元张力中理解20世纪中国文学的多维图景。现代性是一个体系性和流动性的概念,因此,以现代性话语来重述中国现代文学,必须避免本质主义或二元对立的研究思维。2、注重审美现代性体验研究。在充分关注现代性的多元张力的基础上,我们还应该兼顾到文学研究的自身特性,进一步将研究重心适当向审美现代性领域偏移。3、在传统与后现代的参照体系中坚守现代性立场。4、民族认同与“可选择的现代性”。我们强调要既坚守现代性,又传承民族传统文化,将现代性与民族性合二为一,注重现代性的多样性内容与多维度视阈,在差异中体现民族特质,凸显自身的特殊性与鲜活性,从而也有益于民族认同的建构。

AbstractOne The background and current situation of the literature modernity research

After the 1990s, almost every thinking area of the mainland China was at the turn point. At that time, the “ modernity ” issue rapidly became the focus of the attention. First it was only talked at the thinking and culture area , then it spread out to the areas of aesthetics and the research of literature.

Two The advancing front topic and character of the literature modernity research

1 whether the left-wing Chinese literature the 17-year-Chinese literature(1949-1966) and the great proletarian cultural revolution Chinese literature (1966-1976) have the character of modernity or not?

From the view of modernity, we made a new judgment on the values of those periods of the Chinese literature and a new narration of them . For this reason, we can say that one of the most outstanding achievements of using the theory of modernity is to rewrite the history of those periods of Chinese literature.

2 The modernity VS the 20th century Chinese literature trends and the research of authors and their works

The topic we mentioned above is the most controversial and exploring . However, the identification of one period of the literature is in the connection of the whole history of literature. Therefore, only with the overall and historical view to look at the 20th century Chinese literature trends, then can we understand the character of Chinese literature fully.

3 The formation and its character of the style modernity

For the past two years, many literature periodicals published the articles about the inherent relationships between the media and the generatingchanging and development of Chinese modern literature in the form of conversation by writing. It expressed the self-conscious of our researchers.

4 The native modernity and its construction of the Chinese literature

In the past few years , most of the researchers only did researches on the “modernity” issue. Contrary to it , the researchers rethink this issue carefully in recently.

5 The extensity of the Chinese literature modernity

At the past time, the academic circles’ hope of improvement and anxiety of modernity has constrained the talk about the spacial sense of Chinese literature modernity. But it is only now ,that have the researchers to attach importance to this issue.

6 Self-identity :a new method of researching the Chinese literature modernity

Self –identity is a new method of researching the Chinese literature modernity. And at the same time, the basic point of literature research is concerning the experience and feeling of our lives.

7 The narration for the bottom people of the society and the rethinking of the modernity discourse

In recent years, the literature about the bottom people of the society is springing up. This is another special view for us to rethink the modernity of literature.

Three The inherent problems and its root of the research about the literature modernity

1 The confused understanding of the concept of modernity

First, the researchers can not make clear about these concepts, like modernism”、”modernity and modernization. So they misuse them. Second, there still are many different opinions about the concepts of the modernity tradition and post-modernity.

2 Enlightenment is the only research trend for the modernity

We can easily find that our academic circles only do research on the modernity and blindly value the modernity. Obviously it lacks of the rethinking about the weakness of the modernity.

3 The theory of modernity covers the living literature reality

Some researchers apply mechanically with the theory of modernity .As a result, the theory of modernity wraps the living literature reality.

Four The prediction and suggestion for the research of the literature modernity

1 Only we understand the multivariate tensility of the modernity ,then we can comprehend the multidimensional prospect of the 20th century Chinese literature

Modernity is a systematic and flexible word. Therefore, when we rewrite the history of the Chinese modern literature, we should avoid the thoughts of the essential ideology and the bivariate opponency.

2 Pay more attention to the research about the arts of the modernity

On the basis of taking note of the multivariate tensility of the modernity, we should emphasize the futures of the literature research and slowly change the main point to the research of arts of the modernity.

3 Referring to the tradition and post-modern, we should insist on our modernity position

4 Nationality-identity and the optional modernity

We not only insist on the modernity, but also keep on the tradition. So then we can unify the modernity and the nationality into one part. On one hand, we should put great emphasis on the diversities of modernity. On the other hand, we must make the character of nationality standout .All of these are good for the construction of the nationality identification.

文学理论的反思研究 邢建昌 河北师范大学研究生学院

提要:反思性,是世界范围内后现代语境下人文学科和社会科学的一个基本特点。反思成为众多人文学科和社会科学化解危机、超越自身的基本方式。中国文学理论的反思,既是世界范围内文学理论反思在中国问题中的落实,又具有自己的特点。文化保守主义思潮的涌动,跨学科间的互动,以及学科内部发展的需要, 是中国文学理论反思意识得以强化的主要诱因。反思,增进了不同文学理论与批评流派之间的交流与对话,文学理论进入了一个理性建设和学理表达的时期。

以道观之——当代文艺学、美学学科建设问题探讨 王建疆 西北师范大学文学院

提要:美学、文艺学作为人文学科,在学术范式的确定性,研究结论的公理性和普适性方面必然具有学科共性,具有共享话语特征。不能因为强调学科的民族性和个别性而取代这种学科共性。

中国有没有自己的文论和美学传统?中国文论和美学如何建构?本文认为,中国的美学和文艺学学科首先要讲公理、范式、共性,而不是盲目追求所谓特色或个性。接受学科范导的意义不在于是否有学术个性,而首先在于一个学科能否成立。同时,也不能从学科发展的水平高低来论断该学科是否存在,而是要看学科发展的现实的路径。以此观之,当代中国美学和文艺学已经在自然生成中走着自己的路。

中国美学正在形成一个以与现实保持一定距离,以开放性、吸纳性、思辨性和关联性为特征的美学新传统。美学、文艺学学科的发展,是在学科范导、传统影响等共同作用下的自然生成过程,应该遵循自然无为之道,避免不必要的重建和盲目的折腾。

Abstract: Wang Jianjiang points out that a principle is in need of explicating its axiom, paradigm and common ground, rather than blindly pursuing a so-called characteristics or individuality. The Chinese aesthetics has been formed a new tradition that keep away from the reality, and open, assimilate, combine past and present. The development of a principle should abide by a natural way, rather then a blind reconstruction.

文化诗学:建构中国当代文学理论的方向 杨红莉 石家庄学院

提要:中国文学理论目前处于危机状态。我以为“危机感”实际上是因为我们还没有弄清楚新的生活方式产生的根源,没有适应这种新生活方式,还缺乏对由于新的生活方式的到来而导致的学科变化的规律性认识以及采取应变措施所导致的。一旦认识到这种变化的取向,在其中找到并确立了自己的学术立场,这种无措的危机感也许会转化为积极的建构意识。

“文化诗学”是一种既尊重传统学术成果,又充分尊重现实新变的富有可行性的中国当代文学理论建构之路。本文试图对“文化诗学”的整体文化观与诗学精神做出自己的理解。

“文化诗学”主要包括以下内涵:①其研究对象是文学文本、文学现象、文学思潮,总之是和文学艺术活动相关的事项;②其研究方法是跨学科的,既是文学的、美学的,也是超越文学、美学进入到民俗学、人类学、社会学、政治学、经济学、心理学、哲学等其他学科的,是从文学的角度进入对象,而从更广泛的文化的角度升发对象,以提供一种文化的精神为目的;③其审美尺度是文化和诗学的双重标准,并且这两者的融合要能够如羚羊挂角无迹可求;④“文化诗学”追求人文精神的内涵。

文化诗学方法兼顾了人文学科的人文性和科学性双重特征。简单地理解“文化诗学”的意图,即是“从跨学科的文化视野,把所谓的‘内部研究’与‘外部研究’贯通起来,通过对文学文本的分析,广泛而深入地接触和联系现实”(北京师范大学出版社“文化与诗学丛书”总序),即向着文化——人类精神生活的高度和方向开掘文学。从这一点看出,文化诗学含蕴的领域之宽是十分令人惊异的。

走向跨文化研究的文学理论 李庆本 北京语言大学比较文学研究所

提要:20世纪80年代,中国文学理论的主要任务是确立文学的审美本性,到了90年代,文化研究逐渐取代审美研究,成为文学研究的主要模式。文化研究强调文学与当代大众文化的现实关联性,具有积极意义,但也存在着忽视文学理论学科本性的缺陷。跨文化研究超越东方/西方二元对立模式,遵循“多元化的普遍主义”原则,强调审美研究与实证研究的统一, 可以成为未来文学理论发展的一条切实可行的途径。

Abstract: The main task of Chinese Literary Theory in 1980s was to establish its Aesthetic nature. But after 1990, this Aesthetics studies had gradually been replaced by Cultural Studies, which had became the main model of literary research. The Cultural Studies, stressing the close relation with the popular culture, had positive meaning, but it negatively ignored the nature of Literary Theory as a subject. Cross-Cultural Studies, which transcends the dualism of Orient/Occident, follows the principia of Multi-Universalism, and stresses the unification of Aesthetics Studies and empirical studies, will probably become one of the development routes of Literary Theory in the coming years.

观看之道——跨学科视野中的文艺学 周计武 南京大学中文系

提要:最近几年,文艺学的边界、非文学的文学性、文学研究与文化研究的关系、日常生活的审美化等问题成为学术界论争的焦点。这些论争是文艺学自我反思的需要,值得肯定。中国正处于改革开放的社会转型期。一方面,人们的生活方式和文化观念发生了巨大的变化;另一方面,新的文艺现象和文艺观念层出不穷,如“图文之争”、“欲望化写作”、新媒介艺术等。这些变化对文艺学的课程设置、研究对象和研究理念构成了挑战。面对这些挑战,文艺学学科陷入了自我定位的困境。钱中文先生把这种困境理解为“文艺学的合法性危机”。

针对这种危机,学术界的立场大体上可分为三类:1、坚守阵地,捍卫文艺学学科的合法性。这些学者坚持以文学为研究对象,主张文艺的自主性和文艺边界的确定性。2、游击作战,质疑学科建制的合法性。这些学者大量借鉴西方的社会理论资源和文化研究方法,主张打破边界,跨越鸿沟。3、和而不同,在批判与反思中建构文艺学。这些学者主张以开放的心态和平等对话的精神,在跨学科的视野中重新整合文艺学的研究资源。本文主要阐释第三种立场。

第三种立场有两个理论前提:第一、文艺观念既具有特定的历史性和地方性,也具有跨越时空的家族相似性。这就要求我们既要有强烈的历史感,也要有敏锐的现实意识;既要有国际化的眼光,也要有本土化的视野。第二、任何研究策略都具有一定的合理性和内在的局限性。同时,受知识和信仰的影响,我们的研究对象是高度选择性的。它有时会使我们变得深刻,有时会使我们变得片面。这就要求我们在跨学科的视野中,多元透视,整体把握,不断挖掘新的文献资料和理论资源,寻找新的学科生长点。

Abstract: There are many issues becoming focuses at the centre of academia in recent years, such as the borderline of literature and art, the literariness of non-literature, the relation between literary researches and cultural studies, the aesthetization of everyday life, which are to be sure because they have become the need of self-reflection in the subject. China are in the period of social transformation of open and reform, which brought great changes between the way of life and the cultural ideas of people on the one hand, and new forms and ideas of literature and art like “duspute between images and words”, “writing for the desire”, “new media art”emerging in endlessly on the other, such changes challenged the arrangement of courses, research objects and ideas of literature and art. When facing this challenge, the subject of literature and art got into the dilemma of self-orientation, which was understood to be “the crisis of legality” by Mr. Qian Zhongwen.

Such crisis causes three positions in the academia. Firstly, the legality of subject is firmly adhered by scholars who consider literature as the research object, claiming that the subject is independent and its boaderlines is certern. Secondly, they question the legality of it’s setup, trying to break its boaderlines when using the western social theoretic resourses and the ways of cultural studies for reference. Thirdly, they establish the subject in criticism and reflection, regulating renewedly the research resourses of the subject in the perspective of interdiscipline with open intention and spirit of corporate conversation. My paper mainly interpreted the third position.

There are two theoretic premisses for the third position. One is that the ideas of literature and art possess either special histority and locality or it’s transpatio-temporal family similarity, which demand that we have either the strong sense of history or the acute consciousness of reality, either the internationalized eyesight or the perspective of locality. The other is that any research ways have certain rationality and internal localization, and our research objects are highly selective under the influence of knowledge and belief, sometimes it will make us profound, sometimes it will bring us unilateralism, all of which ask us to grasp them wholly in the perspective of interdiscipline, constantly excavating new documental and theoretic resourses, looking for new development of the subject.

20世纪80年代文学主体性论争——作为中国当代文论发展史的解读

孟登迎 中国青年政治学院

提要:上世纪80年代出现的“文学主体性论争”涉及新时期文学理论的立论基础,并最终触及文艺观念的深层变革问题:即如何看待文学与社会政治的关系、如何看待个体的自由、情感和价值等问题。本文试图将这场论争本身看作一个充满对话与矛盾的社会文本来解读,发现论争各方的观点及其互动基本呈现了新时期文论发展的内在张力和线索。

刘再复的“文学主体性”话语实际承传了一套源于近现代以来形成的强调文学为人生、为社会的人道主义文学观念(以鲁迅、周作人、胡风、巴人、钱谷融等人为代表)。刘再复的“文学主体性”包含如下三方面涵义:应该恢复人作为实践主体的地位,应该探寻人在文学领域作为“精神主体”的深层心理结构,应该尊重和肯定不同类型的文学个性和作家个性。

刘再复的主体论文学观引发的争论大致可归为三类:忧虑与反对;支持与补充;反思局限与寻求突破。以陈涌为代表的批评者正确指明了主体只在实践中以主动和受动的辩证互动而存在,但他们囿于理论局限,无法说明文艺反映意识形态和社会生活的特殊性是以何种方式存在和进行的。大多数支持刘文的观点和批驳刘文观点的文章都用“新”与“旧”二元简单划分把学术论争简单化,论争有流于简单表态的趋势。不少论争者在对“主体性”范畴未做深入的清理之时,就开始卷入文艺与政治、与意识形态命运的论争当中,彼此常以断言替代严密的逻辑分析,极大地束缚了论争的深层展开。只有少数学者试图分析造就“新”、“旧”文艺观的理论前提,并将此定位为文艺理论变革的关键。这场论争导致了文艺深层观念的冲撞和探索,为“新”文论体系的启动创造了契机。文学主体性论争对中国当代文论建设的影响深远,目前在中国文论界有较大影响的四种文学理论观——主体论文学观、象征论文学观、生产论文学观和审美意识形态文学观,都在很大程度上受到了文学主体性论争话语的促进和影响。当然,也有学者从这场论争中看到了主体性文论话语的局限,陈燕谷、靳大成指出其以古典人道主义作为立论基础的滞后性,批评刘所言“主体性本质上以某种统治关系为基础。”到1988年不少学者已经开始走入对“主体”如何被建构而成、主体自由的界限和边界的思考。从某种意义上说,这些批评之声可以看作是主体性话语走向消解的标志。

AbstractIn order to construct a new system of Chinese literary theory, we should inspect the history of its formation. The dissertation considers the Dispute on literary ubjectivity as a representive cultural event in New Periodof China. Through the analyses of the opinions from each side involved, I want to provide some usefulness for the construction of literary theory in the future.

The Dispute on the literary subjectivity” has its special socio--cultural context. With the transformation in social reality, a deep change was caused in people’s mind. At that time the argument on human nature and humanism prevailed in academic circle, “the Dispute on literary subjectivity” corresponded with this tide.

The wording of “literary subjectivity” is first advanced by Liu zai-fu, a young scholar who suffered from the mental agonies for “Cultural Revoloution Movement”.In his view, “Man”(individual subject) should consider himself and should be considered as a free,active and respectable “subject”, not as a passive “object” as it is in “the Theory of Reflection”. He combined his early research on literary characters with some modern philosophical and psychological theories, eventually deduced his conclusion which can run through the whole literary activity.

Liu’s theory brought aout a heated argument. Many scholars participated in it, some agreed, some opposed, some felt dissatisfied, some even violently criticised. This argument displayed not only the composition of the interllectual community, but also the measures they took and they could take. I think the latter is more important for us to consider, because from there we may find more useful infomation for literary theory’s construction and limation.

This argument promotes contemporary literary theory in China to self-conscious and enriches the new displines of literature. On the other hand, we mustn’t ignore its historical limitation, such as the lack of philosophical basis, the interference from non-academic aspects, the Utopian passion for intellectual authority, and so on. We can learn much from this argument, and we should know clearly that although we are facing an embarassed situation, we ought not to lose the ideal of construction.

政治元素在当代文学理论中的意涵迁移 孙盛涛 青岛大学师范学院中文系

提要:政治元素在我国当代文论系统经历了从中心向边缘的转移,由取代审美作为艺术价值判断“第一”标准的神圣化地位,降为在文学批评话语中悄然隐退的缺席状态。在当代中国文论与美学命题中,“文艺为政治服务”曾作为理论旗帜、以毋庸置疑的真理式话语体系占据美学理念的主导地位,获得了惟一合法化存在的意义。由此而生的负面影响是理论文本在庸俗化、教条式的思想指针的拨弄下源源不绝地涌现,在现实中导致对不同思想观念的专断式的压制和排斥。20世纪末期,随着艺术审美地位的上升,原有的贬抑艺术独立地位的堂皇理念逐渐受到质疑。而伴随社会改革开放的深入和市场经济新秩序的建立,理论研究中的政治失语现象悄悄出现,表征为对过去以政治贬抑艺术地位的理论命题缺乏反思、对于文学与艺术文本中的政治意识疏于关注。虽然,近几年理论领域有关政治美学的探讨、有关政治论诗学的构想在某种程度上试图缓冲这种政治冷漠状况,但政治元素在文论系统已然发生实质性迁移。

如果说由中心向边缘的转移只是一种外在的地位变化,那么政治语词形式的转换,则显示出中西方文论对话交往过程以及社会思潮影响下,政治元素内在意蕴的扩展。文化政治、审美政治以温和而多义的思想指向,取代了锐利而更多单一性的时代政治,化强权式干预为潜隐式渗透。实际上,文学理论界域政治语义的转换在西方马克思主义文论及美学领域已产生丰富的学术成果,充实了文学理论发展的新课题。

Abstract: Political elements have undergone the process of marginalization in China’s contemporary literary theory system. They have been relegated from the divine status which once replaced the aesthetics’ first-norm position in judging art value to the gradual absent status in literary criticism dialogues. In contemporary Chinese literary theory and aesthetic proposition, the slogan “ literature and art serve for politics”, once as the theory standard, led in the aesthetic concept by the undoubted truth dialogue system and it was granted as the special honor of the sole legitimate existence. The negative influence was that theory tests flooded continuously under the guidelines of the vulgarized and dogmatic ideology and they resulted in the arbitrary suppression and rejection of different ideological concepts. At the end of Twentieth Century, as art aesthetics upgraded its position, the former high-sounding concept that depreciated the independent position of art was gradually suspected. With the deepening of social reform and opening-up and the establishment of the new order of marker economy, the phenomenon of political aphasia in the theory study gradually emerged, shown by the lack of reflection on the theory proposition in which politics depreciated the position of art in the past and the negligence of attention to the political ideology of the literary and art tests. Although the probing into the politics aesthetics in the theory domain in recent years and the concept concerning political poetry intended to ease the indifferent situation of politics to some extent, politics did have already been marginalized essentially in the literary theory system.

If the marginalization is just an outward position shift, the form shift of political words indicates the extension of the implication of political element in the Sino-Western dialogues and exchanges and under the influence of social trends. Cultural politics and aesthetic politics, with the mild and diversified guidelines, replaced the sharp and monotonous politics of times. And they changed from power interference to latent penetration. In fact, the political semantic shift in the domain of literary theory has made tremendous academic achievements and enriched the new topics for the literary theory development.

本世纪初文学理论建设审视 戴冠青 泉州师范学院中文系

提要:21世纪以来短短数年间,文论界关于文学理论建设的话题和行动进行得特别频繁和热烈。这一方面体现出中国文论界迫切希望与世界接轨、迫切希望建构新的文论话语的热情和态势;另一方面也透露出中国文论在全球化语境和消费文化背景下的焦虑情绪和突围构想。然而这么多年过去,我们对建设中国文论的自信心似乎没有增长反而有所衰减。究其原因是,我们一直找不到真正具有独创意义的逻辑起点,我们的当代文论建设许多还停留在构想之上,中国特有的求全责备的文化心态也导致中国文论难以有独到的理论建树。也许充分利用古典文论资源,梳理出独具特色的中国文艺批评的话语模式,或者扬长避短,发展东方人所擅长的感悟性文学批评,是一种有效的突围选择。

AbstractDuring the short period of the several years since the 21st century, there are frequent and heated discussions and actions concerning literary theories in the literary theory circles. The phenomenon, on the one hand, shows that the Chinese literary theory circles has the enthusiasm and momentum in their urgent desire to joined the world, and to construct new texts of literary theories, and on the other hand, also reveals worries and ideas of breakthroughs of the Chinese literary theories in the globalized language environment and the background of consumptive culture. However, after so many years, our confidence in constructing Chinese literary theories is fading away rather than increasing. The reasons are that we haven’t found the logical starting point that is really unique, our efforts in constructing the current literary theories are still remaining on the conception, and the cultural mentality----being critical and demanding perfection, which is characteristic of Chinese culture, results in the lack of uniqueness in the Chinese literary theories. Maybe one effective alternative for the breakthrough is: to work out the characteristic modes of texts of Chinese art & literature criticisms by making full use of the resources of classical literary theories; or, by making the best use of our advantages while at the same time avoiding our disadvantages, to develop the reflective literature criticism that is what the oriental people are good at.

新时期文艺理论界四“癖”之反思 张冠华 郑州大学文学院

提要:新时期文艺理论界存在四种“癖好”:“审美”之癖;“危机”之癖;“求新”之癖;“呼吁”之癖。第一种癖好表现为“言必审美”。“审美”之癖的主要症结是注意了区别而忽略了联系,即对文艺与政治、经济、时代、伦理、宗教、社会结构、思维方式、价值准则、文化背景、民族心理等的关系和联系注意得不够,讲得不够;我们不赞成的是把“审美”字眼泛滥化,并不反对必需和科学使用“审美”字眼,包括把它作为修饰语和用它来改造过去的术语。第二种癖好表现为“言必危机”。其实这是不必要的。从整体上看,任何民族的文艺理论,都永远会处于无间断性的危机之中,不是出现这样的危机,就是出现那样的危机;旧的还没有结束,新的就又产生了;危机,是它的正常状态,危机的消除,便意味着文艺理论的真正死亡。从这个角度上看,危机,是文艺理论生命的组成部分,是它的一种独特的品格。其具体理由如下:其一,从文艺理论与艺术实践的关系中看,文艺理论永远是滞后的,永远处于未决状态,在一定程度上与艺术实践脱节;其二,从特点上看,任何文艺理论都是在某种领域和某种角度对文学的思考,其结果是“顾此失彼”;其三,从文艺理论的发展过程看,它是质疑者,又是被质疑者,没有永恒的形态、原理、观念、术语;其四,从文艺理论的自性上看,它所蕴含的主观成分,使裁剪与曲解客观的艺术事实现象根本无法避免。第三种癖好表现为在学术上“以追求新奇为荣”。显然,这是一种误区。文艺学不是时髦学。文艺学虽然面向未来,但未来并未成为现实,它概括的主要是从古到今的审美经验、审美规律。从份量上看,过去的东西占大头。可是我们却轻视这个大头,显然是不妥当的。第四种癖好表现为“以呼吁为本”。新时期以来,站在城头大声呐喊、呼吁的人有余,而坐下来潜心研究的人不足,结果是彼问题还未深入研究、取得成果,就被此问题否定或替代。“呼吁”之癖带来的不良后果这几年已显示出来了,那就是文艺学的浮躁。即文艺学在口号中、呼吁中过日子,研究者无所适从、动辄得咎。要说危机,这才是真正的文学理论危机。

启蒙的多维度与中国现代主义文论的启蒙性 王洪岳 浙江师范大学人文学院

提要:启蒙应具备三个维度,即理性、感性和神性。前两个维度构成启蒙大厦的框架和肌理,后一个维度则使大厦具有了神圣的象征意味。中国的启蒙主义也应该具备这三个维度。如果说浪漫主义主要激发了中国人的群体性情感,现实主义主要培育了中国人的群体性理性,那么,现代主义则主要刺激了现代中国人的个体感性(尤其非理性)领域,成为启蒙的感性维度的重要方面。同时,中国现代主义文论也参与了启蒙的神性维度的建构。

中国现代主义文论最早的形式是以译介方式出现的。对尼采、叔本华等的译介构成了中国现代主义文论的哲学美学基础。一方面,中国现代的启蒙思想家王国维、鲁迅等将当时西方最时髦最具先锋性的哲学美学和中国的启蒙建构结合到一起。王国维的“无用之用”是中国最早的带有现代主义色彩的美学思想,是对康德和叔本华美学思想的中国化表述。它是中国现代的“感性启蒙”思想。鲁迅早期亦将这些非理性主义或现代主义思想家当成自己的同道。三四十年代的林同济认识到尼采思想具有“极端尖锐的直觉”,其艺术具有浓厚的“象征性”等等,都说明了中国现代主义文论与感性启蒙的密切关系。简言之,中国现代主义文论是在两种现代性即启蒙现代性和审美现代性的悖论当中建构了启蒙的感性维度。

另一方面,中国现代主义文论还承载了建构启蒙的神性维度的重任。这体现为以象征主义为代表的现代主义诗学所具有的神学来源。启蒙时期的西方哲人曾经论述过启蒙与神性信仰之间的交互关系。我们从中国现代主义诗学的相关文献中,发现它与启蒙之神性维度的关系。作为基督徒的中国现代主义诗论家梁宗岱的“纯诗”诗学观,关注诗的神性和神秘性,关注诗的神性与人的精神的“契合”等等思想也与基督教神学关系密切。三十年代他发现了法国纯诗理论背后的基督教信仰的潜在力量,纯诗论超度我们的灵魂达到“不朽的宇宙”。梁宗岱深刻地表达了宗教信仰与现代主义之间的密切关系。因此,中国现代主义诗学是中国启蒙主义的多维立体目标中的应有之义。

Abstract: Enlightenment should be haven three dimensionalities, namely rational-ity, sensibility and divinity. The ex- two dimensionalities are constituted the frame and texture of the illuminative mansion, and the last dimensionality then endows the mansion with the sacred symbol meaning. Enlightenment in China should also have these three dimensionalities. If we say that the romanticism stirred up primarily the Chinese community temperament, realism grew the rationalistic of Chinese community primarily, so, the modernism then stimulated the modern Chinese individual sensitive faculty( particularly non- rationalism) realm primarily, becoming important aspect that the dimensionality of sensibility of enlightenment. At the same time, the Chinese modernism theory also participated the construction of the divinity of enlightenment.

The earliest form of theory of Chinese modernism is the mode of translation. Translating about Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are the foundation of Chinese modernist theories. On the one hand, Wang Guowei, Lu Xun etc., these illuminative thinkers in modern China, put these vanguard philosophical aesthetics of the West with the construction of Chinese enlightenment joining together. Theories of "useless use" of Wang Guowei is the earliest esthetical thoughts taking the modernist colors in China , that is to express these aesthetics of Kant and Schopenhauer in Chinese style. It is "the enlightenment of sensibility" thought in modern China. Lu Xun in early times identified these non-rationalist or modernist thinkers as fellows. Lin Tongji ,living in the 1930-40 ,knew the thoughts of Nietzsche having" extreme sharp of intuition", and its art having profound "symbol quality " etc., all these were explaining the relation consanguineously between Chinese modernism and enlightenment. To be brief, the theories of Chinese modernism constructed the dimensionality of sensibility of enlightenment in two kinds of modernities--the modernity of enlightenment and the modernity of aesthetics.

On the other hand, the theories of Chinese modernism loaded the heavy responsibility of construction the dimensionality of divinity of enlightenment. This incarnates the source of theology that the modernist poetics by symbolism, its representative. The western philosophers of the age of enlightenment had ever discussed relations between the enlightenment and divine faith to each other. We discovered the relations between Chinese modernist poetics and divinity dimensionality of enlightenment from the related cultural data. The poetics of" pure poem" of Liang Zongdai—a famous modernist critic and a Christian –learned the view, namely paying attention to the divinity of the poem with mystery, and the "agreement" about the divinity of the poem and the human spirit etc., has a relation with Christianity theology closely. He discovered the latent power of Christianity belief in the poetics of pure poem in France, the theories of pure poem releasing our souls from purgatory to "immortal cosmos" in 1930's. Liang expressed the close relation between the faith of religion and modernist poetics profoundly. Therefore, Chinese modernist theory is stereoscopic target in dimensionalities of Chinese enlightenment.

经典化批评的现代性历史元叙事及其悖论——以建国后十七年文学批评为中心

李松 武汉大学文学院

提要:以现代性历史元叙事作为切入口,可以发现建国后十七年经典化批评的历史观具有自反性的宿命以及自身无法突破的悖论。这种尴尬、悖谬的悲剧性历史决定了以现代性、“一体化”、“不断革命”论为特征的文学批评必然走向崩溃的命运。

Abstract: Surveyed from the angle of modernity' historical meta-narration, a self-betrayal fate and an inevitable paradox can be detected in the view of history that classical criticism holds in the 17 years after the establishment of P. R China. This embarrassing, paradoxical and tragic history dooms the collapse of literature criticism whose features are modernity, “integration” and the theory of “continuous revolution”.

尊体·破体·原体——近30年批评文体研究之实绩 李建中 武汉大学文学院

提要:近30年中国文论批评文体研究的实绩,表现在“尊体”、“破体”和“原体”三个层面。中国文论自身有着尊体传统,早在刘勰的时代便已具备成熟的文体意识。当代学者弘扬尊体传统,建立起“怎么说比说什么更为重要”的文体意识,并以此为出发点重构中国文学批评史,重开中国文学批评的诗径和理路,从而对当下文学批评的流行病症作出批判性回应,并对文学批评的未来路径作出探索性开启。从批评文体的视角重新考察中国文学批评在历朝历代的嬗变,则可见出“破体”规律。这一规律体现于两个方面:设文之体有常,特定的言说内容须安放于相应的言说方式(体裁、语体、风格等)之中,但古往今来的中国文论家却“破”这个“常”,有意无意地将理论内容安放于文学文体之中,此其一;一时代有一时代之批评文体,此一时代之新文体是对彼一时代之旧文体的“破”,此其二。前者滥觞于庄子,后者绵延至当下。近30年批评文体研究,在继承尊体传统与发现破体规律的基础上又提出原体思路。尊体与破体,看似悖立实则契合,契合于“体”之原始义:人之“體”(身体、生命之总属)。当“体”之原始义延伸至文学批评时,研究者从相关的文论术语(体性、体貌、体格、体势)中,体悟到“风清骨峻”之生命感和“才性异区”之独创性。说到底,中国文论的“尊体”是对生命的尊重,中国文论的“破体”是对个性的张扬。然而,当下技术化社会的工具主义和功利主义正在销蚀文学批评的生命感,而对学术活动的量化管理又将文学批评的个性特征格式化。中国文论研究的“原体”思路,旨在探求批评文体诗性传统的文化之源和文字之根,重塑“體”之生命尊严感和个体独创性,从而将传统形态的“怎么说”创造性地转换为现代形态的“怎么说”。因此,近30年批评文体研究从“尊体”、“破体”到“原体”的思路及实绩,是从新时期到新世纪“古代文论现代转换”这一主旋律之中的华美乐章。

Abstract: The outcome of the research of styles of literary criticism in resent 30 years represent on three lays: respect styles, break styles and originate styles. Chinese criticism has a tradition of respect styles, mature style consciousness had already built in Liu xie’s period. Contemporary scholars carry forward this tradition of respect styles, set up a style consciousness consider that how to say is more important than what to say. They rebuild the history of Chinese literary base on this style consciousness, recreate the poetic road and academic path of Chinese literary criticism, and respond to the prevalent symptom in today’s criticism, try to explore the new way of literary criticism in the future. Reviewing the diversification in Chinese literary criticism during the past dynasties form the view of criticism style can bring us the rules of “break styles”. This rule represents on two aspects: suppose the styles has its law, special content calls for special mode (genre, style, manner) to express, but Chinese critics of all ages “broke” this constant style, express the theoretical content in a literary way consciously or unconsciously; another is the evolvement of the traditional style, each age has its particular critical style, the style of a new age is the “break” of the previous one. The former aspect can trace back to Chuang-tzu, the latter one remains existent today. The research of styles of literary criticism in resent 30 years bring forward the thought to originate styles base on the tradition of respect styles and the rule of break styles. Respect styles and break styles looks like absurdity, but correspond to each other very much, agree with the original meaning of “style”: style of people (summarie of body and life ) . When the original meaning of “style” stretch into literal field, researchers realize the sense of dignity and individuation of life from correlative critic terms (character, aspect, pattern, and potential). In one word, “respect styles” in Chinese literary criticism is the respect to life, “break styles” in Chinese literary criticism is the development of individuality, and “originate styles” is rebuilding the life dignity sense and original creation of “style” on the premises of the research on the culture source and character root of criticism style’s poetic tradition, then put “how to say” in traditional form to “how to say” in modern form. So, the outcome of the research of styles of literary criticism in resent 30 years from “respect style” to “break style” to “originate style” is a gorgeous movement of the primary rhythm—modern conversion of ancient literary criticism from new period to new century.

叙事视野下的梁启超文艺思想 赵炎秋 湖南师范大学文学院

提要:梁启超的文学思想具有丰富的叙事学内涵。他从启蒙的角度出发,强调小说的作用,提出小说界革命的口号。他从语言文字、叙事技巧和文学中的情感表达方式等方面对文学形式进行了探讨,提出了一些独到的看法。他肯定史传文学,推崇《史记》,并对其特点进行了比较深入的探讨。他注意到了中国诗歌中的写实传统,并对杜甫诗作中的写实诗与半写实诗做了比较深入的分析。这些都有利于叙事文学和叙事思想的发展,丰富了中国近代叙事思想的内涵。

Abstract: There are abundant narrative connotation in Liang Qichao’s literary thoughts. From the point of enlightenment, He emphasize the affection of novel, and advocate the revolution in the field of novel. He study on the literary form, put forward some original point of view. He confirm history literature, approve Shiji, and study on its characters rather deeply. He realize the narrative tradition in Chinese poetry, and study on Du Fu’s narrative poems and half narrative poems. All these are favorable for narrative literature and its development, and enrich the connotation of modern Chinese narrative thought

论墨子的文学观念——兼论孔墨文学观念之异同 王齐洲 华中师范大学

提要:墨子受孔子思想影响,其文学观念中有与孔子文学观念相近的内涵。然而,由于其所处阶级立场不同,核心价值观念有别,对社会现实问题的认识以及对理想社会秩序的憧憬很不一样,因而对文学的本质和功能的认识也就有颇大的差异。墨子在形式上保留了孔子所揭橥的文学概念,却抽掉了这一概念的核心内容——礼乐制度和礼乐文化,将文学变成“出言谈”的手段或工具,大大压缩了孔子文学观念的内涵,但同时增加个人言论创造作为文学的新内容,又使文学的获得了新的发展空间。墨子的文学观念不强调情感和审美,也与孔子的文学观念区别开来。

古典文论研究与艺术类非物质文化遗产的保护 赖力行 湖南师范大学文学院

提要:①艺术类非物质文化遗产有独特的形式美,欣赏它才能保护它;非物质文化遗产的保护,需要社会方方面面的努力和政策的倾斜。其中,让更多的现代人了解进而喜欢古典遗产,让古典无形遗产在今天有更多的人欣赏,使其在中国乃至世界有生存的空间,这是保护非物质文化遗产的治本之策。博物馆式的保护不能长久。时代和文化的变迁使我们很难和非物质文化遗产的内容发生实用关系,但非物质文化遗产自身形式美(比如可看性很强的“绝活”)的吸引,却有可能让我们接近和理解这些遗产。中华民族的艺术类非物质文化遗产(戏曲,古琴,绘画、书法、雕刻、建筑等),在形式的创造和技巧的运用上独具匠心,在长期的实践中形成了各自独特的形式美。非物质文化遗产的感性形式在触动我们的审美感情的同时,必然激起我们了解其中所暗示、传达的本民族精神文化特质的欲望。

②探讨非物质文化遗产形式美的特点,引导欣赏,是古典文艺理论研究的主要目的。非物质文化遗产保护中的不当措施,除了商业意识形态的影响,也有现代人缺乏古典艺术经验的原因。现代人的艺术经验和美学趣味,难以欣赏传统艺术语言的精致细腻、“简而不竭”,及其深厚远韵的形式意味。探讨和传播这方面的知识,古典文艺理论大有作为。古典文艺理论所总结的东西很难解释当代的文艺现象和文学经验,却最适合发掘中华古典艺术的审美价值、文化特质,并彰显其在现代多元社会中的参照价值,确保民族艺术和文化的精神特性代代相传。古代文论对现代文学艺术的“失语”不能苛求,对传统艺术和审美经验的“失语”(包括深度研究和普及传播)却是失职。对非物质文化遗产的深度研究和古典艺术经验的普及传播,除了要有现代意识,更重要的做到两个打通:文史哲的打通;各种艺术门类的打通。

古代文论自身也要像非物质文化遗产一样来保护。全球化语境中,对中华古典文论的独特性要有足够认识,在思维方式、术语范畴、深层文化价值等方面,古典文论与以西方文论为主的现代文论都存在巨大的、不可融合的差异。仅举文论话语为例,将古代文论多义的单音词转化为现代汉语的趋向单义的双音词,就会造成丰富语义的失落,缩小接受理解的空间,减低欣赏的兴趣。

古代文论现代化之审思 周兴陆 复旦大学中文系

提要:本文考察古代文论进入20世纪文化思想的历史进程,认为古代文论与现代文论之间并非“断裂”的关系,而是“古代”文论通过不断调整它丰富的姿态跻身于“现代”思想,传统的“性灵”说与现代的人性论文学观、传统的经世致用文学思想与现代的革命文学观念都具有紧密的内在联系。本文阐述了百年古文论研究的“以西释中”模式,以及学术界对这种阐释模式的思想警觉。最后提出,在建设个性化、多样化的中国文论中,应该提倡“逆向性探求”,传统文论与现代文论应该多元互补:现代思想中缺失的部分,可以从传统中补救完整;现代思想中偏颇的倾向,可以通过某些传统的恢复而予以矫正。就中国传统文论研究来说,其深层次的问题,应该是重新思考中国文论的人学问题。研究传统文论,应该以重建源于民族文化精神传统的价值体系、人格信念、人生理想为旨归。

新时期以来古代文论研究中存在的几个主要问题 黄念然 华中师范大学文学院

提要:本文在撰写《二十世纪中国古代文学研究史·文论卷》的基础上,就新时期以来中国古代文论研究中的话语形态、话语生产、话语格局等问题进行了初步的梳理和反思。

新时期以来中国古代文论研究有三种基本的话语形态:理论阐释型话语、历史考辨型话语和意识形态型话语。

理论阐释型研究常见的弊病是:就理论谈理论,既缺少形而下的文学史实、事实的有力支撑,又缺少形而上的审美感悟或哲性思辨的强力渗透,不能表现出理论本身的超越性特质,也降低了理论的启示功能。因此,综合性阐释平台的建立十分重要。这种综合性阐释平台的基本支柱应当是:在理论与现象相互支撑的基础上,透过对理论现象之生成事实的分析来加强理论阐发的历史实感;透过对理论主体之可能性意旨的洞察来拓展理论阐发的现有空间;通过对现有理论体制的不断反思来获得理论的自我更新能力;以一种泛学科联姻的理论阐释格局来打破单一理论阐释模式所设立的硬性边界;在一种既具有批评穿透力又兼具历史有效性的逻辑表述中去释放理论话语本身应当具有的活力。

新时期以来历史考辨研究的实绩表明,青年学者的历史考辨能力固然还亟待提高,学界自身也有义务纠正那些只重理论阐发而轻视历史考辨的偏颇的研究趣味甚至不良学风。同时,新时期以来,学界一定程度上形成了理论阐发型研究和历史考辨型研究之间的对立。应当将学术价值、学术逻辑和学术目的三者区别开来,就学术价值而言,理论阐发型研究和历史考辨型研究不分轩轾;从学术逻辑上讲,历史考辨型研究应当优先于理论阐发型研究,因为,从学科发生学的角度看,古代文论的理论学科属性是依附于其历史学科属性的,历史本真面貌没有搞清楚就进行理论阐发,往往成了空疏之学,因为思想的活力只有在对传统的准确理解和不断发掘中才能获取本原性的力量;从学术目的来看,历史考辨最终是为了抵达理论核心,并准确敞现理论内涵,理论阐发型研究应是第一位的。

建国后至新时期,古代文论研究中的意识形态话语具有以下几种主要特征:1、群体无意识性。2、二元对立模式。3、话语主体的双面性。新时期以来,意识形态的运作开始隐蔽化、深层化、复杂化、综合化,并产生了一些新的特征。其表征是政治斗争、阶级斗争、路线斗争的基本法则逐渐淡隐,但以此而形成的二元对立模式仍然存在,并被整合到以“文化”为总体研究对象的各种研究模式中。

学者的知识结构是制约古代文论研究的最重要的因素之一。拥有完善且具备动态开放性知识结构的生产群体将是古代文论学术话语能始终处于良性生产态势的必要条件之一,也是古代文论学术研究接力正常进行的希望之所在。早期古代文论研究者往往学贯中西,知识结构完整,故而能从容出入历史考证与理论阐释之间。“文革”期间,研究者们运用马克思主义的基本理论解释古代文论中的各种现象或问题往往较为深刻,在运用社会历史批评方法、阶级分析方法、辩证法时常能得心应手,但受“大一统”时期政治意识形态的制约,知识结构的单一化特点表现得很明显,常常表现出线性因果思维和二元对立思维模式。九十年代以后成长起来的一批人才,在思维方式上具有更大的灵活性,传统因袭更少,学术观念更新,但对文学史熟悉程度不够,在商品经济的冲击下,心性定力较差,对内在学识的养成与积累不太关注,学术使命感也不如前几代人强烈。在古代文论研究中,一种与文学其它部类分隔开来的“学术圈子”正在形成,“你死我自然活”的零合博奕逻辑初显苗头。此外,学术权力机构对古代文论研究的控制同样不可轻视。

从地缘政治与学术研究的关联看,新时期以来的中国古代文论研究已基本形成了由中国大陆、台港地区、日韩、俄苏与欧美等不同地域或群体组成的多元化的研究格局。不同文化区域中独具特色的文化传统、思维模式以及话语表述方式已经逐步融入到古代文论研究中来,如何协调文化互融性与文化独特性的矛盾,实现跨文化理解,是摆在古代文论研究者面前的一个新课题。

Abstract: The thesis is based on my monograph The 20th Century Research History of Classical Chinese Literature: Volume of the Literary Criticism. It focuses and reflects on the configurations, manufactures and structures of the discourses of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism research in Post-Mao Era.

There lie three basic configurations of the discourses of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism research in Post-Mao Era, theoretical explanation discourses, historical examination discourses and ideological discourses.

It is the familiar malady of the theoretical explanation discourse that it merely considers theories as their stand and is wanting in both concrete literature historical facts and superorganic aesthetic realization or philosophic consideration, therefore it cannot put up surmounting particularity of theories and depresses the inspiring function of theories. Hence, it is very important to construct an integrated platform for explanation. The mainstays of the platform should be following rules. First, to reinforce the historical sense of theoretical explanations by analyzing the facts which generate theories and their supporting phenomenon. Second, to develop existing spaces of theoretical explanation by penetrating possible intentions of theories. Third, to make theories renovated by themselves by continual reflections on existing theory system. Fourth, to break down the rigid boundary set by single-theory explanation pattern by setting up an interdisciplinary-theory explanation pattern. Fifth, to release the energy that the theoretical discourses ought to have by a kind of logical statements possessing both the penetrating power of criticism and historical validity.

The historical examination researches in Post-Mao Era show that on the one hand, the historical examination competence of young scholars need to be enhanced, on the other hand, the academia is in duty bound to correct the wrong researching tendency of paying much attention to theoretical explanation rather than historical examination. What is more serious is that the confliction between theoretical explanation and historical examination researches has emerged. We should part the values, logics and aims of learning from each other. Theoretical explanation and historical examination researches are of equal values of learning. However, the latter ought to take precedence of the former in logics of learning because the theoretical property of the discipline of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism leeches on to its historical property. On the viewpoint of the aim of learning, historical examination leads to the core of theories eventually, therefore theoretical explanation researches ought to be of greatest importance.

The ideological discourses of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism research in Mao Era had following main characteristics. 1. Collective Unconsciousness. 2. Opposite Mode. 3.Two-faces property of discourse subjects. Since Post-Mao era, ideological uses have been more and more covert, deep-rooted, complicated and colligated. Its token is that the main rules of political, classes and routes fights have been fading, however the opposite mode still exists and is conformed into various researching modes aiming to “cultures”.

The knowledge structure of scholars is the most important factor that can condition Classical Chinese Literary Criticism research. A group of scholars which has perfect and dynamic-open knowledge structure is one of the necessary conditions to keep the academic discourses of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism be in good development tendency. The former researchers of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism always had good knowledge both in Chinese and Western cultures, therefore, they could had good command in both historical examination and theoretical explanation. During “the cultural revolution”, when the researchers used the Marxist theoretical explanation to do Classical Chinese Literary Criticism, they did well-done jobs with their faculties. The only fault of their researches was the simple cause and effect and opposite mode thinking patterns caused by the politics ideological environment. Scholars emerged after 1990’ s are much more flexible and creative than their teachers in thinking. However, they are not as familiar with the literary history as their teachers and have less mission feelings. Kind of academic circles are coming into being. Fight to be or wait to be killed is the coming logics among the circles. In addition, the controls from academic authority instructions are a force to be reckoned with.

On the point of geographical politics and the connection between academic researches, the multimember researching pattern comprising the groups of scholars from the Mainland, Taiwan , Hong Kong , Japan , Korea , Russia , Europe and North America etc. has formed. The particular cultural traditions, thinking models and discourse manners have blended into the Classical Chinese literary criticism researches. It is a new challenging task to harmonize the conflicts between cultures and to achieve cross-cultural understanding.

古代文论“现代转换”之我见 张帆 沈阳师范大学文学院

提要:古代文论的“现代转换”是学术界长时间以来一直在讨论的一个重要问题。学界至今历来对这一问题看法不一,但其中比较主流的观点是认为古代文论不仅可以进行“现代转换”,而且这种转换也是很必要的。理论界讨论的焦点问题在于是对古代文论进行一种全方位、系统化的转换,还是要有选择的转换,这些看法都有一定的道理。但笔者认为,古代文论“现代转换”这个命题本身,就其转换的可行性角度来说,似乎还有值得商榷的地方。

首先,我国古代文论源于以诗文为正宗的古代文学。所以在古代文论是以系统性、理论性很强的诗论和文论为核心的。所以它不能适应今天以小说为主的文学创作。语境的丧失使古代文论失去了实践的意义。

其次,我国的新文学无论是技巧、方法还是形式、观念等诸方面都是来自于西方。并且这些正是建构于对古典文学、文艺理论的拆解的基础之上的。这样就使古代文论之于当今的文学,无论是创作还是批评,都不再具有指导性意义。

最后,从民族文化心理角度上来说,许多人认为目前我国文学的诸方面都主要来自西方,于是便产生了一种自卑心理。他们感到自己处于弱势地位,所以就去追溯昔日的辉煌,执著于古代文论的“现代转换”。其实,我国向西方学习,并不是完全照搬,而是无不经过了中国化的改造。在这种狭隘民族心理的驱使下的转换是不必要的。

综上,笔者认为对古代文论实施“现代转换”的意义和可行性均不大。古代文论自有体现其宝贵价值与意义的所在,那就是在对古代文学的发掘、整理及批评方面上。而在时空及环境都已发生巨大变化的今天,它已不能再发挥应有的作用了。如果非要对它作硬性的“转换”,恐怕只会适得其反。我们应该看到,古代文论与现今中国新文学的契合点是天然存在的,而非是用“转换”的方式去求得的。古代文论在今天现实生活中的意义应是一种古典精神、文化的积淀和传承,也应作为当前时代的一种背景存在,而不是要把它强加“转换”来适应本不属于它的时代。

Abstract: The "Modern Transformation" of Chinese classical literature theory is a long time academics have been discussing an important issue. So far scholars on this issue has always mixed views, But more mainstream view is that not only can be the inspiration for "modern conversion" Such change is very necessary. Theoretical discussion of the issue in the Ancient therefore conducted a comprehensive, systematic change, or choose to have the conversion, these views have some truth in it. In my opinion, however, the inspiration of The "Modern Transformation" of the proposition itself, it converts the feasibility point of view, There seems to be worthy of consideration.

First of all, Chinese classical literature theory comes from a poem of authentic ancient literature. So is the classical systemic, highly theoretical On the Poetics of Culture core. Therefore, it can not meet today's fiction-based literary creations. Context so that the loss of practice Ancient lost significance.

Secondly, China's new literature both techniques, methods or forms, and other aspects of the concept are from the West. Construction and these are precisely right in the classical literature, literary theory of dismantling the foundation. As a result, in today's Ancient literature, creative or both, were no longer guiding significance.

Finally, from a psychological perspective of the national culture, many people think that our literary aspects are mainly from the West, So we have a kind of inferiority complex. They feel themselves in vulnerable positions, went back past glory, focusing on the inspiration of the "Modern Transformation." In fact, our learning from the west, is not completely copy, but all of China after the transformation. In this narrow nationalism driven psychological change is unnecessary.

In summary, my viewpoint on the implementation of The "Modern Transformation" of Chinese classical literature theory of the significance and feasibility unlikely. Ancient own reflected its value and significance of the location, which is right in ancient literature to explore, collate and criticized aspects. And the environment in terms of time and have been undergoing tremendous changes, it can no longer play its due role. If it has to dictate it " transformation " that will lead to just the opposite. We should see that with the present-day Chinese Ancient Literature is a natural fit there. instead of " transformation " approach sought by. Ancient today's realities of life should be a classical spirit, cultural heritage and the heritage, It should also serve as the current era of the existence of a background, We are not saying it imposed "transformation" to adapt to the exclusion of its era.

王国维“系统圆照”文学研究方法的内涵及其启示 欧阳文风 中南大学文学院

提要:“系统圆照”是王国维最重要的一种文学研究方法。其内涵包括两个层面:①文学从属于一个总的学术系统中,各学科之间沟通会同,相与阐发,文学研究可以运用相关学科的理论和方法来对文学进行多方位的体悟和省察;②学术“无新旧”,“无中西”,“无有用无用”,应该剔除古今、中西以及有用无用二元对立的思维模式,在一个超时间、超地域、超学科的大系统中,对文学进行全面的观照。王国维的《宋元戏曲史》成功地演绎了这一方法。“系统圆照”方法对现代诗学研究的启示是多方面的,深入理解其内涵,对我们在利用古代诗学、借鉴西方诗学以及进行跨学科研究中遇到的一些长期纠缠不清的问题,能够提供一种全新的认识。

语言分析与批评的中国诗学研究 韩军 华中师范大学文学院

提要:为了反驳西方关于汉语“象形化”的偏见,并使中国诗学摆脱印象式、评点式的形态而形成客观严肃的面目,刘若愚借鉴西方新批评等文论话语,细致入微地展开中国诗歌语言的形式分析。在借鉴、运用燕卜荪等人的语义分析方法的过程中,刘若愚没有拘守于现成的理论模式,而是将语言问题同社会背景、文化传统联系起来,从而充分凸显了中国诗歌语言的特色。他认为,语言分析与中国诗学的观念性探讨一道,正可以为中国诗学研究提供可靠的方法论意义上的基础。而他在批评的视野中结合中国传统语言资源及西方语言分析方法的努力,也必然有助于我们在更根本的层面上,思考中国文论研究的方式与途径。

从文史关系看文学的独立性——刘知几之文史关系论 王庆 西华大学人文学院

提要:刘知几所著的《史通》是中国第一部史学理论著作,第一次对唐以前的史学进行了全面的批评和总结。我们以文艺美学的视角研究《史通》,发现刘知几鉴于南北朝文风的影响,非常反对以文入史,因此他很注重文史关系的辨析,从一个侧面也为文学的独立性作出了贡献。

Abstract: “Shi Tong” is the first Chinese history theory work. It did a general criticism and made a roundly summarization of the history before Tang Dynasty for the first time. In the view of literary aesthetics, the discovery can be obtained that Liu Zhiji, influenced by the writing style of North and South Dynasty, extraordinarily opposed the way that writes historical books in a way of literary writing, therefore, he did a lot of work to distinguish literature from history. What he did devoted to the independence of literature.

范畴及其边界 姜金元 中南财经政法大学新闻与文化传播学院中文系

提要:近百年来的中国古代文论研究,改变了中国传统的文论形态和批评方式,其中的成败得失是一个值得回味的问题。在近百年的文论研究方法中,范畴研究无疑是最重要的方法。作为一种方法论的自觉,范畴研究与现代科学精神和科学方法的大力提倡相关联。经过百年的研究与拓展,范畴研究取得了不菲的实绩,但同时也存在一些值得思考的问题,其中首要的问题是范畴研究适应性问题或范畴研究的边界问题。

“范畴”最初是指对词语的分类而得到的东西。世界原本是杂乱无章的,但可以通过分析、归纳、判断对其进行分类和定位。借助范畴,无边无际、混沌的世界开始以一种清晰的形式呈现在我们面前。人类的思维活动和实践活动离不开范畴的标记和指引。西方文化历来重视理性精神,强调对事物的分类,追求语词和概念的明晰,范畴在西方思维活动中居于核心地位。中国古代虽然也有“名言”研究,但以诗性为特征的中国古代思维活动重视超出名言之外的领悟,“名言”或“范畴”在中国传统思想活动并未被视为核心。在中国古代文论领域,一个语词的使用具有较大的灵活性和随意性,也往往缺乏清晰的界定。这也是现代转换过程中古代文论让人诟病的原因之一,它也构成了近百年古代文论范畴研究的动力。

范畴在标记世界和规范人的认识,使世界变得有序,使认识清晰化的同时,也遮蔽着世界,限定着人的认识。从理论上讲,范畴只不过是人与世界的关系中对象化的世界,即呈现在外的显性的一小部分;此外或此下还隐含着一个更丰富的、难以言传的世界。在对象性的认识领域,在被科学划定的有限的、显性的领域之内,范畴研究是有效的;超过这个领域,范畴研究便呈现出它的局促来。胡塞尔认为,逻辑范畴只能在谓词判断的范围内作为规定性的部分来谈论,但是,所有范畴和范畴形式都是在前谓词综合的基础上建构起来的,前谓词的知觉体验是对象性的认识范畴的基础。胡塞尔的“生活世界”就是这样一个前谓词、前范畴的尚未分化的“灌木丛”。从某种意义上讲,对象化、主题化、符号化的范畴,只揭示了生活世界的一小部分。

中国古代文论的本体是“道”以及与“道”密切相关联的“象”。这是一个未分化的世界,居于名言、范畴之前、之外的领域。中国古代的主要文本——诗歌,其理想的状态也并非名言、范畴所能准确把握的。所以,过分倚重范畴研究,也许难以真正切近中国古代文论本身。

Abstract: In recent centuries China ancient literature criticism study, changed the Chinese tradition article to discuss the shape and the criticism way, success or failure is one worthing the aftertaste the question. Discusses in the research technique in the near hundred years, the category research is without doubt the most important method. As one methodology determination, the category research and the modern spirit of science and the scientific method advocate is connected. After hundred years research and the development, the category research has obtained the uncommon actual accomplishments, but simultaneously also has the problem which some are worth pondering, in which most important question is the category research compatible question or the category research boundary problem.

"Category" is at first refers to the thing which obtains to the words and expressions classification. The world is originally chaotic, but may through the analysis, the induction, the judgment carry on the classification and the localization to it. With the aid of the category, limitless, the chaos world starts one clear form to present in front of us. Humanity's thinking activity and practice cannot leave the words and expressions, the category mark and the direction. The western culture always takes the rational spirit, emphasizes to the thing classification, the pursue word and the concept definition, thus, the category resides in the core in West thinking activity the status. Although China ancient times also had " Famous saying"; the famous saying; research, but ancient times the thinking activity took take the poem as characteristic China to surpass outside the famous saying the comprehension, thus, " Famous saying"; or said " category"; is regarded by no means as in the Chinese tradition thought activity the core. Ancient times the article discussed the domain in China, a word use had the big flexibility and the capriciousness, also often lacked the clear boundary to decide. This also is one of reasons which the person denounced in modern switching process Middle Ages generation of literature criticism, it also constituted the near hundred year ancient times article to discuss the category research the power.

Category in mark world and standard person's understanding, causes the world to become the order, causes understanding clear at the same time, It is also camouflaging the world, is defining human's understanding. Theoretically speaking, the category is the human and in the world relations the object world, namely presents in an outside dominant small part, In addition or under this is also concealing the world which richer, explains with difficulty. In the objectivity understanding domain, in is delimited limitedly by the science, in the dominant domain, the category research is effective; however, the exceeding domain, the category research presents it to be cramped. Husserl thought the logical category only can discuss in the predicate judgment scope as the regulated part. But all categories and the category form all is constructs in the front predicate synthesis foundation, the first predicate consciousness experience is the objectivity understanding category foundation. Husserl's “life world ”is the shrubbery which this kind of front predicate, front the category, not yet splits up. In a sense, the object, the subject, the signifying category, it only explained a life world appearance small part.

China ancient times the main body of literature criticism was "Taoism"; as well as "Aspect" relative with "Taoism". This is an undifferentiation world, is resides in front of the famous saying, the category, beside domain. China ancient times domain of text - - poetry, its ideal condition also by no means famous saying, the category could grasp accurately. Therefore, has a high opinion of excessively the category research, perhaps with difficulty truly was close to China ancient times the article to discuss itself.

启夕秀于未振——中国古代少数民族文论研究述评及其构建 贾一心 青海民族学院文学院

提要:中华民族是在长期历史发展中由众多民族共同发展、逐渐形成的民族集合体,其文化的多元与整一,也具体的体现在中华民族文艺理论方面,是汉族和55个少数民族共同创造的与埃及、印度、希腊文学艺术理论比肩而立的世界文学艺术瑰宝。

1980115郭绍虞先生在《人民日报》发表题为《建立具有中国民族特点的马克思主义文艺理论》。他说“我们要建立具有中国民族特点的马克思主义文艺理论,还应该扩大我们的研究领域,更多地发现材料。过去,由于正统观念的影响,我们研究批评史,往往是较多地注意文论、诗论,而较少注意小说、戏曲的理论;较多注意上古、中古的理论,而较少注意近代的理论;较多注意汉民族的理论而较少注意兄弟民族的理论。这种情况,近年来已有所改变,它表现为专门研究小说、戏剧理论和近代文论的同志增多了,兄弟民族的文艺理论也有所发现。但是,总的说来,这方面的工作还做得不够,还需要有人去进一步从事这方面的研究。”他热切呼吁“应该从多方面去开拓古代文艺理论研究的领域,把我们理论遗产的珍贵品发掘出来,搜集起来,对它们进行科学的研究,以丰富世界和人类文艺理论的宝库。”此后中国古代少数民族文艺理论成果接踵而至,取得了可喜的进展,特别是《中国少数民族文艺理论集成》这本综合性文献的出版,将中国古代少数民族文艺理论的研究推进到一个新的历史时期。

然而,我们也看到,尽管如此,对中国古代少数民族文艺理论和美学的研究毕竟势单力薄、置于边缘,正如有的学者所说:“人们对汉族美学是关注有加却对少数民族美学留心不够,后者处于不但‘失语’而且简直就是整体‘失落’。”如今面对文化多元论和文化一体论、中心与边缘激烈交锋的当下语境,重建中国本色文论话语、复兴民族美学,成为中国文学艺术界的学术共识。为此我们必须延续中国传统优秀文化的血脉,聚焦视阈到地域辽阔、历史悠久和文化多彩的中国少数民族文学艺术苑囿,对中国古代少数民族文艺理论的性质范围、别具一格的理论体系和独有的理论范畴等作更深入的研究,为发展、丰富和充实“中国作风中国气派”的文学和美学理论奋起直追。

文学研究领域中传播学理论运用初探——以中国古代文学研究为例

柯卓英 西安石油大学人文学院

提要:运用传播学理论研究中国古代文学,既是传播学的本土化研究,也是古代文学的跨学科研究,同时是文艺理论研究领域中值得探讨的新问题。古代文学的传播学研究范围涉及到诗词曲、小说、散文、戏剧、文学理论等各个方面,呈现出较为活跃的态势。在研究中,诗与小说传播的研究成果相对较多;其次是词与戏剧,博士论文的选题以明清小说与戏剧为多,其他则相对很少。从文学体裁研究而论,诗歌传播研究以唐代诗人诗歌为主,小说研究主要集中在明清小说传播研究方面,词主要以宋代著名词人、词与歌妓的传播研究为主,戏剧方面以元明清戏剧传播研究为主,散文、散曲的传播研究相对处于冷落阶段。其研究思路主要可归纳为六种:第一是体裁分类传播研究,第二是名家作品传播研究,第三是传播方式研究,第四是跨文化传播研究,第五是新闻传播研究,第六是版本的传播研究。

虽然诗词与小说戏剧等的传播研究取得了一定的成绩,但与古代文学研究的盛况和成果相比依然相差悬殊,可开拓的研究领域极为广博,有待于进一步挖掘、整理与探索。第一是古代文学传播史研究。第二是传播媒介的研究,目前尚没有人专门研究传播媒介对古代文学繁荣的重要作用。第三是目前已研究的成果普遍存在概念化、浮泛化现象,缺乏深入系统的研究,有待于理论化、系统化、深入化。第四是文学作品的接受与反馈研究。第五是跨文化传播研究,这方面的成果涉猎范围广泛,相对不集中,有待于进一步专题化、系统化地研究。

文学传播学研究要求研究者既要有系统的传播学基础理论知识,又要有深厚的文艺理论功底。就中国古代文学而言,其传播学研究领域广泛,大有可为。无论是从历史发展的轨迹来研究古代文学的传播历程、从文学体裁的类型来研究一种文学形式的传播,还是从作家作品的接受与反馈以及跨文化传播等角度进行研究,中国古代文学的传播学研究都具有旺盛的生命力,需要研究者不断地为传播学的本土化研究,为古代文学的跨学科研究,为文艺理论新发展进行深入的探索。

Abstract :Studying Chinese ancient literature by communication theory is the localization of communication study as well as the interdisciplinary research of ancient literature, which is also a new problem worth exploring in literary theory research field. Ancient Literature communication research covers the following aspects: poetry, fictions, essays, dramas, literary theory and other aspects, showing a more active developing trend. Among those studies, more research results are about poetry and fiction communication, followed by Ci and drama. More Doctoral dissertations have focused on Qing Dynasty novels and dramas, while others are relatively few. In terms of Literary genre, the study on the dissemination of poetry was mainly about Tang Dynasty poetry; novels mainly concentrating on the Ming and Qing Dynasties; Ci mainly on Song famous Ci, Geisha words; drama mainly focusing on Ming and Qing . The research of essays and Sanqu dissemination was relatively few. The main researches can be summed up in following six types: studies on genre classification; on dissemination of famous works, on modes of transmission, on cross-cultural communication, on news media and edition dissemination.

Although the dissemination research had made some achievements on poetry, fictions, dramas and so on, however, it is still a pioneering research field and worth exploring further compared to the great results of ancient literature. The worthy studying aspects are as follows: history of ancient literature; Communication media (up to now no one has been specializing in the study of the important role of media and prosperity on ancient literature); the results of the study have been widespread conceptualization, too abstract, and lack of in-depth and systematic research; study on the acceptance and feedback of literature; cross-cultural communication research.

The literature dissemination study requests researcher to have both systematical theory knowledge in communications, and profound cultural theoretical knowledge. As Chinese Ancient Literature is concerned, it has an extensive research scope and bright prospects. We may examine the spread of ancient literature course from the track of historical development, or from the literary genre to study the type of a literary form of communication, or from the acceptance and feedback of writers’ works or from the aspect of cross-cultural dissemination. The dissemination study in Ancient Chinese literature has great vitality, which needs researchers to explore further for the localization study of ancient literature and interdisciplinary research.

作为学科的“中国文论”刍议 牛月明 中国海洋大学文学院

提要:“中国文论”既可以是一个普泛的名词,也可以是一个专用的范畴,还可以是一个有待建构的学科。作为一个普泛的名词,大家对“中国文论”有各种不同的理解。作为专用的范畴“中国文论”,有几个必须考虑的因素:①文论的语种:表述语言是中文(主要指汉语)还是外文,②文论的问题意识:表述的是普泛性问题还是时代性或区域性的问题,是中国的问题还是外国的问题,有无全球视野和可沟通、可对话性③知识领域和研究对象的划界、根本问题的提问的依据:是中国的历史与现实还是外国的理论。④普泛性问题提问与解答中,文论关键词、核心范畴的根源与背景,西方文论话语和中国文论话语的不同分量。从逻辑上讲,由于这几个因素的不同组合和组合时的不同偏重,就可能产生众多个性差异显著的“中国文论”。从历史上看,也有几种不可忽视的“中国文论”的现实存在:

一种是中文(主要指汉语)表述的、研究普泛性问题的、与西方文论“互文见义”的、与中国古代文论“对待立义”的文论;一种是研究中国古代或现当代特定问题的、与西方文论“互文见义”的、与中国古代文论“对待立义”的文论;第三种是外文表述的,具有中国问题意识的,在关键词、核心范畴的使用上与中国古代文论“互文见义”、与西方文论“对待立义”,在知识领域和研究对象的划界、根本问题的提问上以外国的理论为依据的文论;第四种是中文(主要指汉语)表述的、研究普泛性问题的、在核心范畴的使用上承接中国古代文论话语的、在知识领域和研究对象的划界上受外国理论的影响但坚持以中国的历史为依据的文论。

作为有待进行学科建构的“中国文论”,应该是不同于以上四种“中国文论”的第五种:它是中文(主要指汉语)表述的,具有全球视野和可沟通、可对话性,仍然不排除在比较视野、某些具体问题上以西方智慧为借镜。但它在问题意识、知识领域、核心话语上是与西方文论“对待立义”、与中国传统文论“互文见义”的文论。

谋求体验与阐释相统一的中国古代文论研究之路 彭维锋 中国劳动关系学院文化传播系

提要:对待中国古代文论的现代转换,有三种思路,“民族”的、“科学”的与“阐释”的。对古代文论的阐释联系着对整个中国古代文化的阐释,而对古代文化的阐释又关联着人类生存的意义问题。古代文论要借鉴西方文论的经验和规则,革除主观印象式批评的缺陷,保留重感发体验的传统,延续曾一度中断的民族精神的血脉,只有如此,才能重新激活古文论的诸种因子,使我们的古文论研究获得生生不已的力量。

Abstract: There are three kinds of way towards the modern translation about the Chinese ancient literary theory, that’s the ethical, the scientific and the interpretative. If the Chinese ancient literary theory wants to get a rapid development, it must learn the rules of the overseas, and keeping with the tradition of the living experience.

“五·四”时期胡适的科学思想和文学批评 王济民 华中师范大学文学院

提要:崇扬科学是胡适基本的思想主张。“五•四”时期,胡适尤其通过他的学术研究,比如中国传统文学研究,来倡导客观理性的科学精神和思想方法。胡适对传统文学的研究包含重要的文学批评。连同胡适的文学革命主张和其他专门的文学批评整体来看,其文学批评具有相应的科学品格,可以说是一种科学批评。胡适的文学批评,强调文学形式,在具体的批评实践中,注重语言、叙事和结构方面;同时也讲内容,并进行客观的阐释。内容阐释注意作者和时代问题。进而,在形式和内容分析的基础上作出公正评价。这有其体系。胡适的文学批评同他的科学思想是一致的,可以说,是他的科学思想的一部分。胡适对文学的科学批评,对未来的中国文学批评不无意义。

Abstract: Advocating science is Hu shi’s basic thought.In the May Fourth Period,Hushi advocated the scientific mode of thought through academic research ,especially chinese traditional literature research.There is the important literature criticism in the literature research.Hu shi proposed literature revolution and criticized new literature.General speaking, Hushi’s literatuye criticism have scientific character. paying attention to language,narrative and structure of woks,it emphacized the form of literature.Meanwhile,it discussed and explained the content of literature objectively.On these basis,it evaluated literature works impartially.There is a unite bettwen Hushi’s thought of science and his literature criticism.Hu shi’s scientific literature criticim should infulunence future Chinese literature criticism.

德里达版本的《哈姆莱特》或解构版本的马克思主义——解读德里达《马克思的幽灵们》

郭军 北京语言文化大学

提要:德里达在对马克思主义沉默多年后,于1993年公开谈论马克思主义,并于1994年出版了《马克思的幽灵们》,但这是一种解构版本的马克思主义,旨在激活马克思主义批判和变革世界的精神,将马克思主义从极权主义、教条主义的阐释中解脱出来,变成一种不断革命论和未来学。他将这种精神的特征阐释为“徘徊的幽灵”。对此,他是借用《哈姆莱特》中鬼魂和与鬼魂打交道的几个人物的意象来展开其论述的,通过对莎士比亚的作品与马克思的几部经典著作的交错解读,他阐述了对马克思的精神、对欧洲知识分子的责任、对当下时代、特别是对马克思关于“变革时代”的指令的独到思索,回答了全球化语境中“马克思主义何处去”和“马克思主义衰亡了吗”的问题。

Abstract: Jacques Derrida’s specters of marx: the state of the debt, the work of morning, and the new international published in 1994 is his deconstructive version of Marxism by which he seeks to preserve the critical dimension of Marxism in resistance to dogmatic Marxism and to the prediction for the end of Marxism. Through his ingenious cross reading between Shakespeare’s and Marx’s works he produces insightful reflections on the spirit of Marx, the responsibility of European intellectuals and especially the nature ,the validity and the urgency of Marx’s injunction to change the world in an age of capitalist globalization.

文化研究与文本细读——兼谈“新批评”在当前的借鉴意义

李卫华 河北师范大学文学学院

提要:20世纪80年代以后从西方传入中国的文化研究,是一种贯穿了后现代主义文化思想、体现了后现代主义文化诉求的学术研究。文化研究被引入中国的文艺学界,对于中国的文艺学建设和发展确实起到了一定的积极作用:第一,通过跨学科的研究方法,打破了学科之间人为的藩篱,扩大了文学研究的领域。第二,增强了文学研究中的批判意识。但是,随着文化研究的引入,文学研究中出现的一些问题也不容忽视。首先是文学研究对象的无限泛化,其次是文学研究中对于审美价值的忽略和放弃。

正是在这一方面,“新批评”为我们提供了可资借鉴的做法。国内文艺学界对“新批评”的误解一直很多,特别是“新批评”的“细读”一直被人误解为封闭的、形式主义的阅读。其实,细读关注文本,但并不是封闭在文本之中;细读关注“形式”,但这里的“形式”并非只是传递内容的技巧,而是呈现为有机整体的文学作品。“新批评”向来反对割裂文学与社会生活的关系,也反对割裂具体的文学作品与其文化背景之间的关系。但“新批评”对文化问题的关注有两个特点:第一,以文学文本为出发点;第二,以作品的审美价值为研究目标。以“新批评”的中坚人物布鲁克斯和华伦共同编著的《小说鉴赏》中对霍桑的《年轻的布朗大爷》的分析为例,我们不难发现,布鲁克斯和华伦并不是把这篇小说作为清教文化或反清教文化的一个例证,借这篇小说去分析清教教义。他们虽然认为,了解清教教义是理解这篇小说的基础,但他们更关注的是这篇小说的审美价值。换言之,“新批评”不是把文学作品作为文化研究的例证,用文学作品来说明某种文化;而是用文化背景来说明文学作品,分析文学作品的审美价值。“新批评”的细读并不反对研究文化;它所反对的,只是对文学文本的脱离和对审美价值的忽视。

借鉴“新批评”的做法,联系我国当前文艺学的实际,或许可以对文学研究与文化研究的关系做如下概括:第一,文学研究和文化研究是两种不同的学术研究,它们不能互相替代,但可以互相借鉴;第二,文学属于文化,因此文学研究离不开对文化的分析;第三,文学研究必须以文本细读为基础,并以审美价值为旨归。

Abstract: The “Cultural Studies” introduced from the west in the 1980s is a kind of academic study that runs through the postmodernism cultural ideas. In fact, the Cultural Studies has promoted the progress of the literary theories in China, but it also brings some problems. The main progress made by the Cultural Studies has two aspects: one is breaking the man-made hedge between the subjects, expanding the field of the literary studies; the other is boosting up the critical consciousness in the literary studies. The main problems brought by the Cultural Studies are tw one is the overflow of the subject of the literary studies; the other is the lack of close reading and the neglect of the aesthetic value.

The New Criticism as a literary critical theory, its most important contribution is the stress on the aesthetic value and close reading. So it can help us to solve the problems. In China, the “close reading” of the New Criticism is misread to be a formalistic reading. In fact, the “close reading” focuses on the “form”, but this “form” is not only the skills to transform the “content” of the text, it is just the text itself as an organic whole. The New Criticism always opposes dissevering the relationship between the literature and the life, it also apposes dissevering the relationship between the text and its cultural background. But the New Criticism has two characteristics in the attention of culture: one is starting from the text, the other is aiming at the aesthetic value of the text. For example, the analysis of Young Goodman Brown in the Understanding Fiction, we can discover that Brooks and Warren do not treat this novel as an example of Puritanism or Anti-Puritanism, their target is not to analyses the doxy of the Puritanism. Although understanding the doxy of the Puritanism is the base to understanding the novel, Brooks and Warren still focuses on the aesthetic value of the text. That is, The New Criticism does not treat the literary text as an example of the Cultural Studies, but treat the culture as the background of the text. The “close reading” of the New Criticism dose not oppose the study of culture, it just opposes the neglect of the text and its aesthetic value.

Using the way of The New Criticism as reference, contacting the fact of the world of literature and art in China nowadays, perhaps we can gather up the relationship between the Cultural Studies and the literary studies as follows: First, the Cultural Studies and the literary studies are two different academic field, they can use each otherbut can not substitute each other. Second, literature is a representation of culture, so literary study can not depart from the study of culture. Third, literary study must base on the close reading of the text, and aim at the aesthetic value of the text.

新时期蒋孔阳的文学批评理论和实践 张玉能 华中师范大学文学院

提要:在新时期的文艺学发展之中,蒋孔阳先生作为美学家和文艺理论家对文学批评作出了杰出的贡献:在理论上,他把文学批评提升到形而上的美学高度,继承和发展了马克思主义的历史的和美学的相统一的文学批评,明确了美学的批评标准,把文学批评建立在文学欣赏的基础上,构建了形而上与形而下相统一的文学批评模式;在实践上,他亲身进行文学批评实际活动,树立了文本细读、对话交流、阐释理解的楷模。

Abstract: In the poetics development of New Era, Mr. Jiang Kong-yang as aesthetician and literature criticism contributes to literature criticism outstandingly. In theory, he makes literal criticism advance to metaphysical aesthetic altitude. He inherits and develops Marxism’s literal criticism that unifies history and aesthetics. Then he makes clear aesthetic criticism standard. He makes literal criticism based on literal appreciation and constructs the literal criticism mode that unifies metaphysical and non-metaphysical. In practice, he carries through literal criticism practical activity in person and sets an example of text’s reading carefully, exchanging and understanding in interpretation.

讽刺性模仿与《阿Q正传》表层叙事结构及其文化意义—《阿Q正传》叙事文化学分析之一

张开焱 湖北师范学院中文系

提要:《阿Q正传》表层叙事结构是对中国古代源远流长的史传英雄故事模式的讽刺性模仿,这个英雄故事模式主要由“出生寒微,但少有大志——历经挫折磨难困苦,但在精神上保持对现实处境的优势心理——风云际会,乘势而起——终于建立丰功伟绩,获得荣华富贵”这几个基本环节构成,这个史传英雄故事模式积淀着中国文化对待人生崇苦尊卑贵贱的态度和价值观念,按照这个故事模式组织的无数史传英雄的人生经历,都在证实这种态度和价值观念的有效性。

《阿Q正传》正是对这种史传文学中英雄故事模式的模仿,但它不是认同性模仿而是讽刺性模仿,通过作者滑稽化、贬低化的处理,传统史传文学中崇高伟大的英雄变成了现实生活中卑微滑稽的小丑,史传英雄故事模式中具有特殊人生价值的行为、心理和故事环节呈现出完全不同的可怜可笑的意义。通过对史传文学英雄故事模式的讽刺性模仿,表现出鲁迅对积淀于其中的人生态度和价值观念的否定性认识和评价,从而完成了一次彻底的文化脱冕。

AbstractThe surface narrative structure of True Story of Ah Q is the parody on the universal heroic story mode in Chinese ancient historical biography literature.The heroic story mode is consist of three steps, firstly, the heroes usually are born of beggarliness, but with big ambition in his hard boyhood; secondly, shows outstanding nature, magnanimousness, courage and insight, strength and wise while being experiencing lots of crucifixions; lastly, he grasps a chance and succeed. This heroic story mode shows a kind of praise to the hard life in Chinese ancient culture, when this heroic story mode is handed down through generations in historical biography literatures, it also affirms the life philosophy and values that beggarliness is more valuable than nobleness.

Although the narrative of True Story of Ah Q imitates the heroic story mode in Chinese ancient historical biography literature, it is not the identify-imitation but the parody. The author Luxun usually apply travestying and debasing to deal with the imitated story and dramatis personae, changing the noble into hangdog, the unsophisticated man into sophisticate, the hero into antic, then the special meaningful actions, mentality, plot in the heroic story mode in Chinese ancient historical biography literature show the special and ridiculous significance. The parody in True Story of Ah Q shows Luxun’s negative understanding and comment on the life philosophy and value in the heroic story mode in Chinese ancient historical biography literature.

都市文化学与中国文学研究 刘士林 上海师范大学人文学院

提要:在经济全球化的背景下,依托于规模巨大的人口与空间、先进的生产能力及富可敌国的经济总量、发达的现代交通网络与信息服务系统而形成的都市社会正在成为当代人生存与发展的重要背景。我把“城市化进程”的当代形态称为“都市化进程”。在这个进程中,不是普通的“城镇化”或“城市化”,而是以建设“国际化大都市”或“世界级都市群”为发展目标的“都市化进程”,才构成了当代人类生存与发展最重要与最直接的现实世界。另一方面, “都市化”进程不仅在范围上跨越了民族—国家的边界,超出了一般的经济社会发展领域,也深刻地影响到精神生产、文化消费乃至于审美趣味等方面。在都市化进程中产生的各种文化与精神问题,不仅直接促使了人类传统生活方式与价值观念等方面的转型,同时也为当代中国文学学科提供了一个重要的研究对象与领域。

都市文学艺术与审美文化是都市文化生产与消费过程最直接、最重要的感性表现形态。与传统的模式与形态相比,当代都市文学与审美文化在审美经验、审美趣味、生产技术、消费模式、价值判断、人文理想等方面表现出非常多的新特点。对都市社会中产生的新文学样式、艺术类型、审美思潮等进行深入解读与理性阐释,既可以帮助当代人更好地理解他们的生活现实与内心世界,也可以为他们如何摆脱自身在都市社会中的异化提供重要的人文精神资源。需要特别提示的是,由于传统文学观念与理论体系主要是农业文明和现代工业社会的产物,其固有的概念、范畴、方法与理论体系已无法胜任解释与批判当代都市文学与审美文化的理论任务。在这个意义上,对当代都市文学与审美文化经验的关注与研究,不仅有助于推动传统美学、文艺理论等人文学术的学科更新与系统升级,同时也可以使“文学是人学”这个光辉理念更好地展示其时代意义。

与西方的相关研究主要隶属于社会学、人类学、地理学不同,中国都市文化研究在学术渊源与中国文学学科有密切的关联。以西方的城市社会学与中国文学为双重资源进行都市文化学术研究与理论建设,可以为当代人提供一种具有人文理性内涵的方法、观念、理论与解释框架,用来整理他们在都市空间中混乱的内在生命体验与杂乱的外在社会经验,帮助他们在生命主体与都市社会之间建立真实的社会关系与现实联系,以及在真实的生活世界中去探索实现生命自由与本质力量的道路。

Abstract: Each kind of cultural and spiritual problem produced in the metropolitanization advancement not only promotes the transformation of the aspects of human traditional life styles and values and so on but also provides an important research object and area for the contemporary China literature discipline.

The metropolis literary art and aesthetic culture are the most direct and important perceptual performance form in the production and expense process of metropolis culture. Contemporary metropolis literary and aesthetic culture display extremely many new characteristics in aspects of aesthetic experience, aesthetic interest, production technology, expense pattern, value judgment, and humane ideal etc.

The attention and study of the contemporary metropolis literary and the aesthetic culture experience is helpful to impel the subject renewal and the system promotion of the humane academic research on traditional aesthetics, the theory of literary and art and so on, while it also make this glorious ideal of “ literature is the study of human” show its times meaning.

互联网艺术理论巡礼 黄鸣奋 厦门大学中文系

提要:互联网艺术理论来源于对新媒体的社会探索、技术探索与艺术探索。目前,有关论著已经自成体系,形成了以对“遥在”之认识为基础的社会观、以对互联网技术之潜能为揭示为前提的媒体观,以及以“访问”、“沉浸”、“交互”、“涌现”等为核心范畴的艺术观。国内外相关研究存在一定差距,这种现象有必要引起我们的重视。

数字媒介与新世纪文学转型 欧阳友权 中南大学文学院

提要:以计算机网络为代表的数字媒介,用不可抗拒的技术力量引发了当代中国文学的转型,又约束和限定了这一转型的内涵,为汉语文学的历史演变扮演了“消解”和“启蒙”的双重角色。新媒介使文学的审美构成、表意体制和时空观念产生根本性的变化,也对文学传统的赓续造成伤害甚至异化。前者表现为用平民化的叙事促动文学向“新民间写作”转型,用技术方式赢得更大的艺术自由度,以“词思维”和“自娱娱人”的新理念拉动文学深层观念的调整,为文学体制更新探索了新的路径;后者则表现为技术对文学性的消解,作家主体责任担承的弱化,技术复制导致对文学经典信仰的消褪。新世纪的中国文学仍需秉持人文性的精神原点,自觉履行文学的价值承诺,通过调控引导和主体自律改善文学对技术的依赖,使数字媒介对传统的挑战变成文学获得新生的契机,让新媒介成为新世纪中国文学的强大动力和有效资源。

Abstract: Numerical media, which taking the computer network as representation, are not only conduct to the transformation of contemporary Chinese literature with irresistible strength, but also control and limit connotation of transformation, and play dual roles -- “dissolution” and “illuminate” -- for history of Chinese language literature in the same time. The new medium makes the variation of literary aesthetic form, ideographic system and space time opinion, and also causes injury even dissimilation to literary tradition continuation. The former represents that: promoting literature to “new folk writing” style with democratic narration, winning greater artistic freedom with technical method, and driving adjustment of literature deep idea with the principles of “word thinking” and “to amuse oneself and to the other,” in order to explore a new path for literary system renovation. The latter shows technique dissolution to literature, weakness of writers’ subjective responsibility and technical duplication result in weak belief to literary classics. The new century Chinese literature should still hold on spiritual origin of humanity, aware of promise to literary value consciously. Through conduct and subjective self-control to improve dependence of literature upon techniques, to make the numeral media acquiring newborn chance to literature, and to make new media becoming strong power and effective resource for new century Chinese literature as well.

先锋文学与先锋文学的支持网络——关于中国当代先锋文学研究方法论的一点思考

程波 上海大学文学院

提要:对中国当代先锋文学的研究,往往存在着脱离其语境的弊病。本文通过“文学场结构”的概念和方法,力图找到一种用“先锋文学”和“先锋文学支持网络”的悖论关系来表述中国当代先锋文学思潮的方法,来克服和避免这一弊端,并用此方法对中国当代先锋文学研究中被忽视和曲解的一些问题做了概括性的分析,以证明这种方法的有效性和现实意义。

Abstract: The research on Chinese contemporary avant-garde literature often breaks away from its cultural environment. To overcome and avoid this shortcoming, the essay utilizes a concept of ‘literature field’, and strives to find out a method to expatiate on Chinese contemporary avant-garde literature through the paradox between ‘avant-garde literature’ and its support net. The essay then uses this method to synoptically analyze certain points which are neglected and misunderstood in such kind of research, and shows its validity.

身体-肤觉的空间扩展与艺术意境 赵之昂 河南师范大学

提要:身体-肤觉的视觉空间扩展是人的本性之一。身体-肤觉空间扩展向个别事物的情感投射形成“情景交融”;这一空间的情感充盈形成寥廓空间快感。两者的结合是艺术意境形成的根据之一。这样就将现代实验心理学与艺术意境联系起来,从而为中国传统的意境理论找到现代实证依据。

Abstract: the visual expansion of body-skin sense is one nature of human beings’. This space expansion of body-Skin Sense projects feelings on individual things, finally it is formed an aesthetic idea which was blended by feeling and scene; the fillings of this emotion come in to being vast space titillations. Their combination is one evidence for the formation of artistic conception. thus, it links modern experimental psychology and artistic conception. We can find the modern empirical basis for the Chinese traditional theory of artistic conception.

消费时代戏剧艺术审美特征变异略论 胡立新 黄冈师范学院新闻传播系

提要:艺术终结了吗?文学终结了吗?戏剧终结了吗?它们到底是终结了还是变异了?如果是变异了,又变在哪里?这样的变异是“终结”还是“发展”?我们是应该慨叹艺术终结,还是应该去面对当下新的艺术实践,发掘它们新的审美特征?笔者试以话剧《临时病房》和当下地方戏热演为实例,力求给以上问题提供一些实证性的回答。笔者认为,当下戏剧艺术特征的变化,主要表现为新一轮艺术与技术的综合,民间视野下的时尚生活的表现,悲喜交集且雅俗兼容的审美品格等,在喜剧生存观念上有向中国传统戏曲回归的趋向。

论当代日常生活审美的民族化倾向   艾秀梅 南京师范大学

提要:改革开放后,审美从封闭的艺术欣赏领域转移到日常生活领域。90年代后期以来,日常生活审美的民族化趋向越来越明显。其中比较典型的现象如汉服运动、环境装修的中式风潮、国学经典的再消费等。从社会历史根源上说,当下日常生活审美中出现的民族化诉求是外界环境刺激下的反应性产物。这个外力就是中国20世纪的现代化追求及当下的文化全球化浪潮。

首先,日常生活审美中的民族化倾向与中国的现代化追求密切相关。自洋务运动以后,在经济、军事领域起步现代化之后,民国初年,日常生活领域的审美重建被提上议事日程。有传统及民族色彩的审美生活作为选择项之一,成为新儒家等提倡的方案。这一过程后来由于战争及动乱而中断。直到新时期以来才伴随美学热、国学热的复兴再次出现,当今社会生活领域内出现的种种带有民族风尚的审美现象在一定程度上也是现代化发展的后果。

其次,我国目前出现的日常审美民族化现象是在改革开放后发生的,又与经济及文化全球化的浪潮有影响关系。影像文化与电子传播把世界联系成一个整体,把西方审美风尚传入中国,一方面直接影响当下的生活风尚,另一方面又激起审美上的民族自觉,出现了复古风潮。因此,此一趋向也是民族文化在世界文化格局中寻找自我位置的结果。

目前,形成日常生活审美的民族化趋向的是一些鱼龙混杂的现象。汉服等有民族色彩的事物时而被当作汉民族与少数民族的差异标志,时而被用作与日韩国族的区别标志。诸如此类的现象反映出人们观念上的盲目与混乱,首先是审美主体对于民族范畴的认识尚不清晰,从而进一步导致了审美民族性认识上的误区。例如把古典的视同民族的,以复古为民族性,或者把异族情调、异国情调混同于民族性,卖弄奇巧。民族化、民族性、审美的民族性等范畴的内涵与外延有待于做出界定,日常生活审美中民族化倾向的健康发展也需要有针对性的策略。

AbstractAfter the execution of reform and open policy, aestheticization is not a specialization activity in art realm but a daily thing. Since later period of 90s,the national trend of everyday life aestheticization has intensified. There are a lot of relevant phenomenon, for example, Hanist- clothes movement, Chinese style in design.

On the social-history course, the national trend is a response of modernlization process and globalization tendency. Firstly, after the Westernization Movement , in order to built a modern country, daily aestheticization with national characteristic was purposed by New-Confucianist .Unluckly,the plan was destructed by continual wars and turmoils. Now, this course is re-newed with the aesthetic and national academic upsurge. So, the national aesthetic phenomenon in our society is a modern consequence in some degree.

Secondly, the national daily aesthetic is relevant closely with economic and cultural globalization. The visual culture , digital communication and west aesthetic style influence chinese current life style, meanwhile, awaken the nationality reflection. Then, ancient Chinese life has come into fashion again.

But there are a lot of complex and contradictory phenomenon in this national aesthetic trend.For example, Hanist clothes is thought as a ethnic symble on one hand, on the other hand as a national sigh to differ china from Japan or Korea. Some people understand the nationality as exotic atmosphere, some people equal it to the ancient characteristic. In a word, the clear explanation of the relevant terms just as nation, national, national aesthetic must to be given.

新文学图像艺术论 黄薇 中国人民公安大学文学系

提要:探讨中西艺术文化与文学的历史联系是当前学界重要的研究课题之一。本文通过对新文学图像的考察和分析使一种更为开阔的研究方法切实可行地应用到文学研究领域,以突破以往的现成思路和旧有格局。纳入考虑的图像范围主要以新文学经典文本的书面和插图为主。图像种类不仅包括绘画的题材和结构同时也包括抽象的符号与图形。论文在宏观考察现代文学文本的基础上,对书面图像作贯穿始终的重点研究,并对经典图像作细读式的审美分析和微观研究,以凸显新文学书面图像的现代特质及其与中西艺术文化的内在联系。文章认为,文学研究应当包括对相关图像文献的研究。新文学图像文献记录了现代文艺思潮发展变化的历史形状及其观念形态的嬗变过程,从艺术的层面凸显着新文学的主题内涵和精神意蕴,是与文学启蒙共时性存在的艺术启蒙。图像对新文学的传播起到符码指示和象征作用。至今,我们的博物馆和文学馆等公共文化事业,仍是以新文学图像为主向公众传播着启蒙思想和现代精神。图像与印刷与出版与传播与民族文化发展,构成十分紧密的联系。先驱者在编辑丛书的启蒙事业中对图像艺术给予高度重视。

Abstract: The historical relationship between Chinese modern literature and art culture of China and the West is an important research topic at present. By inspecting and analyzing the pictures in modern Chinese literature, the thesis tries to apply a broader research method to studies of modern Chinese literature so as to break through the conventional way of thinking and old pattern. The pictures involved in this thesis are mainly covers and illustrations of the classical works of modern literature; types of the pictures include abstract symbols and graphs as well as drawings. On the basis of macro-analysis, the thesis gives priority to textual pictures; and by close reading the pictures, the writer’s aesthetic analyses and micro-studies present the pictures’ modern traits and their inner relations with art culture of China and the West.The paper suggests that studies of modern literature should contain a study of pictures. The pictures in modern literature record the development of modern literary trend and updating of concepts, artistically show the thematic implications and spiritual meanings of modern literature, so they are art enlightenment coexisting with literature enlightenment. The pictures act as signs and symbols in the course of the spread of modern literature, so that nowadays our museums and libraries are still using the pictures to spread the enlightenment ideologies and modern spirit. Pictures are closely related to printing, publication, communication and the development of national culture, and have been attached much importance to by the pioneers who compiled series of books in their enlightenment cause.

喜剧性矛盾的结构形态与发展变异 修倜 华中师范大学文学院

提要:喜剧性矛盾最基本的结构特征在于它的自我“背反性”,构成喜剧性矛盾的两种因素相互背离、南辕北辙、恰成反对,因而形成一种自我拆解的离心力。由此出发,本文主要从人物形象和情节发展的角度,阐明了这种“背反性”矛盾的结构形态及其发展变异:1.由“假象与本质背反”到“自我与本我背反”;2.由“自我言行背反”到“灵与肉的背反”;3.由“行为与目的背反”到“悖论性的生存”;4.由“效果与动机背反”到“历史的嘲讽”。

Summary: The fundamental structural characteristic of comedical contradiction lies in its contrariety, which means that the two components which constitute the comedical contradition depart from each other, so that the self-paradox centrifugal force is formed. From the aspect of character and plot, the structural form and developmental variation of this contrariety are expressed in the following four points: 1. from the contrary between false appearance and essence to the contrary between ego and id; 2. from the contrary between statements and actions to the contrary between spirit and body; 3. from the contrary between behavior and purpose to the exsistance of contrariety; 4. from the contrary between effect and motivation to the historial taunt.

试论钟惦棐的电影美学思想 李显杰 华中师范大学文学院

提要:本文从电影美学理论角度,梳理探讨了钟惦棐的电影美学思想。认为钟惦棐电影美学思想的基本特征主要表现在三个方面:①鲜明的实践美学特色;②辩证思维的方法论特征;③“以感性为主导的电影美学理论。其电影美学思想中所充盈的现实主义美学观念、深厚浓郁的人民情怀和鞭辟入里的评论与批评见解,奠定了中国电影美学与电影理论研究的最初基石。

戏剧理论研究管窥 刘萍 安徽师范大学文学院

提要:戏剧理论作为艺术理论的重要一枝,从古至今备受研究者的青睐。本文主要围绕戏剧美学与戏剧表演、西方戏剧与中国戏剧、外在戏剧性与内在戏剧性三对范畴,管窥当代戏剧理论研究中出现的问题,以期更准确地认识其内涵,对当今戏剧理论的发展有所裨益。

Abstracts: Being an important part of the art theories, theater theory has always been valued highly. Around the three pairs of categories: theater aesthetics and theater performance, western theater and Chinese theater, outer theatricality and inner theatricality, this paper discusses the problems in the research of theater theory presently.

“术归于学”—近30年来马克思《手稿》的中国文论境遇反思

彭松乔 江汉大学语言文学研究所

提要:作为历史转折时期重要的思想资源,马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》对我国近30年来文艺理论发展产生了深刻的影响,新时期几次重大的文艺理论争鸣都与《手稿》密切相关。总的说来,马克思《手稿》的中国文论境遇呈现出“术归于学”的趋势,话语权力交锋的姿态逐渐被学理探讨所取代,这是值得庆幸的。但这一“术归于学”过程中所隐含的问题域错位现象不容忽视,它在表征《手稿》具有强大理论生命力的同时,也遮蔽了中国新时期文艺发展的诸多症结,这种“注经”式的理论生发模式值得我们反思。中国文艺理论的未来发展,必须在吸收马克思主义经典理论营养时,厘清它所预设的问题域,创新理论生发路径。

Abstract: Be the history turn period important thought resources, Marx s The Manuscript of Economics and Philosophy in 1844produced deep influence to the Chinese literature theories in 30 yearsContend for of a few important literature theorieses are all with manuscript closely related at lately period. Generally speaking, Marx sManuscript on Chinese literature theories encounter present a trend from the discourse power conflict to the academic research, This is worthy of rejoice.But this academic research replace the discourse power conflict process in the implicit problematic wrong place phenomenon is to can't neglect.It at token manuscript have strong theories vitality of in the meantime, also covered lately period literature theories in China to develop of many key points. The theories growth mode of this kind of annotation classic is worthy of we reflect. The future development of the Chinese literature theories, have to be absorbing the Marxist classic theories nourishment in the meantime, tidy up it establish in advance of problematic and creative theories development path.

现在“是一个不需要经典的时代”吗——对季广茂教授

《经典的黄昏与庶民的戏谑》的学术批评 郑惠生 广东汕头教育学院中文系

提要:尽管《经典的黄昏与庶民的戏谑》中也有一些正确的说法,但从总的情况看,却存在着诸多背离学理的地方——或以偏概全,或自相矛盾,或不符事实,或证据不足,或任性发挥,或随意指摘,或强词夺理。就其“不需要经典”的这一核心观点而言,在认识上是“假”的,而在价值上则是“负”的。对作为人类文化遗产的一个重要组成部分的“经典” ,恰当且较为有益的做法是根据人类社会的变迁和文化进步的要求重新加以诠释,并在富于洞察力的诠释的基础上区分出不同“文本”的价值差异,以此来决定增减。

Abstract: It is true that Dusks Classics and Plebeians Jocosity has some correct statements, but there are many parts running counter to the academic principlesfor instance, making sweeping criticisms, self-contradiction, inadequate evidence, spontaneous remarks, random criticism, and reasoning fallaciously. Ji’s central idea that classics are unnecessary is “false” in cognition and “negative” in value. The proper way to treat “classics” is to reinterpret them according to the transformations of human society and the requirements of cultural progress, and discover the value differences of various texts on the basis of insightful observations.

“陌生化”原则与口语化诗歌的“文学性”问题 魏天无 华中师范大学文学院

提要:俄国形式主义文论所主张的“陌生化”原则,对于认识诗歌语言及诗歌文体的特殊性有重要意义,在文学理论批评实践中被当作一个普遍有效的标准。但是,这一原则并不适宜于解释以贴近日常语言的方式传达情感的口语化诗歌。背离日常语言与返回日常语言,事实上都属于诗人所选择的“特殊”的语言表达方式,因而,是否具有言外之意、韵外之致,是判断口语化诗歌的“文学性”的关键。

文艺学的建设性变革及其重构之路 张晶 中国传媒大学文学院

提要:新的审美现实引发了关于“文学理论的边界”的论争,这场论争不仅是难以避免的,而且对于文艺学学科建设来说,也具有非常重要的意义。传统的文艺学受到了严重的挑战,而当今盛行的“文化研究”能否担当起文艺学的功能,是一个值得商榷的问题。在我看来,文艺学如果固守原来的疆界和研究对象,当然会遭遇现实的否定,而如欲以“文化研究”来取消文学理论的存在,也很难行之久远。传统的文艺学以文学作为研究对象,而大众传媒的发达对文学创作及阅读的冲击,必然在理论上构成冲突。米勒《全球化时代文学研究还会继续存在吗》,以其惊世骇俗的题目引发了理论界的震动,而其引用的德里达的话虽然耸人听闻,却不能不使人深思:“在特定的电信技术王国中(从这个意义上说,政治影响倒在其次),整个的所谓文学的时代(即使不是全部)将不复存在。哲学、精神分析学都在劫难逃,甚至连情书也不能幸免----”那么,在当今这个以大众传媒作为主要审美样式的时代,在“审美日常生活化”的背景下,文学和文学理论真会“退出历史舞台”了吗?这也许正是文艺学学科进行重新建构的大好契机。文艺学的研究对象,应该包括着文学本身及以文学为基础的视觉文化的审美现象。文化研究切中了当今时代文化转型的社会现实,但它并不能取代文学理论的研究。

视觉文化及其审美现象,在这个时代无所不在,电视、广告、动画等各种动态的、非动态的图像包围着我们,构成了今天的视觉化生存。“日常生活审美化”的命题的提出,也是基于这种现实。以文字阅读作为审美的主要方式已退居其后。文学及文学理论的权威性受到了挑战。但是文学和文学理论并没有失去了它们存在的价值。

图像在今天的审美生活中占有了相当大的比重,但它不可能“包打天下”。文学的主要样式,如小说、散文、纪实文学乃至诗歌的阅读,仍然是现时期重要的审美方式,创造想象和消费想象的最主要的形式是文学而非其他。

视觉文化的审美因子,依靠文学为其基础。视觉文化能否具有隽永的意味、精美的形式以及吸引人心的魅力,在相当大的程度上是依重于文学的。以中国人的欣赏习惯而论,情节曲折和人物命运的未知性,是最为能够吸引人们审美兴趣的。这与中国的小说传统有着非常深厚的渊源关系,并非纯粹的视觉所能担负。

在中国人的审美兴趣而言,画面的意境感都是其艺术魅力的最主要因素。在中国人的文化心理来说,与中国古典诗歌有着深刻的内在因缘。中国古典诗歌以其意境美为最重要的特点,唐诗最为经典。最能代表中国诗歌的便是这种意境感。图像美感的强弱高下,与这种诗歌思维有内在联系。

视像的创造和欣赏,不可能是与语言文字完全脱离的。从外在的角度讲,是以语言和图像相配合;更在于内涵的深度与精度。文学性缺失或匮乏,直接影响着图像美感的传达。

文学与视像不是互相排斥的。视觉文化从其积极的方面看,应该是更多的吸取文学的乳汁。我们面对无所不在的视像时,不必要取一种抵制或排斥的心理,而应该将其纳入到文艺学的研究格局之中。文学之于视像也非是消极的、异己的,而恰恰是具有重要的建设性作用。文学本身有着内在的显像功能。文学以文字为其艺术语言,并以文字来构织一幅幅图像。这种内在的视像,是文学的特殊性质。从二度创造的角度看,文学作品有着巨大的生发性,这是其他艺术形式所无法比拟的。不能想象没有好的文学剧本或以经典为依托,就能够创造出具有很高艺术价值的影视作品。

从对视觉作品的欣赏角度看,人们习惯于从整体上进行把握。同时,人们期待后面的变化,以其不可预知的惊奇感作为审美的快感。创作者用许多的画面来完成这个整体结构,必须是用文学思维才能创造出来。没有文学思维,无法胜任这种工作。到处都充斥眼帘的图像,大多数是在一种表层的,凌乱的状态下存在着,缺少一种整体感。图像的强化和文学的隐匿造成了深度感的缺失。而深度感的召回,要靠文学性来实现。

时代的变迁使传统的文艺学理论所固守的疆土越来越少了,但并不等于说文学就无可作为。其实,大众传媒中作为审美的因子的图像,恰恰与文学有着不可剥离的内在关系。文艺学的边界与其被动地被打破,不如以积极的建设性的姿态打通文学和视觉文化之间的障壁,将大众传媒中的审美要素纳入文艺学的格局之中。其实,文学创作本身已经发生了很大变化,另外,电视节目的解说词是否应该作为文学作品来加以研究?电子时代的文艺学是大有可为的,文学自身的规则与特性在图像审美中应有的作用,是一般的文化研究无法代替的。

文学批评的修辞论视角在“新时期”的出场及其意义 泓峻 山东大学威海分校中文系

提要:①作为一种批评方法,文学修辞批评强调对文学作品的解读与阐释,必须面对文本。它把文学作品的社会学的、意识形态的、文化的内容以及文学作品所表现出的美学意蕴、美学风格以及情感内容首先看成是文本产生的语言效果,试图借语言分析与篇章结构分析,揭示文学作品意义产生的内在机制。文学修辞批评曾经是中国古代文学批评的基本方法之一,在20世纪西方文学批评中也占有突出的位置。然而,由于特定的历史原因,这种方法在中国当代批评格局中却长期处于边缘的位置,被批评家及批评理论研究者所忽视。中国20世纪文学批评中存在的批评常常远离文本的问题,与批评家修辞意识的缺席直接相关。

②由于与主流的文学观念不协调,文学批评的修辞论视角在20世纪很长时间里几乎被中国批评家遗忘。文学批评中修辞论视角的出场与文学创作、文学观念、文学批评方法都有内在关联。它在“新时期”的出场是在传统文学观念的一尊地位发生动摇,文学创作中形式因素被凸显,以及对20世纪西方形式主义文学理论的引介逐渐走向深入的情况下发生的。1980年代中期以前修辞论批评集中在对王蒙小说的评论中,中后期则转向对马原等先锋作家创作的关注。

③由于批评家修辞意识的缺席,20世纪80年代以来中国文学批评界建立文学批评的学术规范的努力一直收效甚微。文学修辞批评承诺对文本意义与效果产生的过程进行揭秘,它是批评家对文本进行意义阐释与价值评判的基础。社会学批评、意识形态批评、文化批评等文学批评方法离开了对文本的修辞分析,会显得主观、随意,最终失去文学批评的学术品格。因此,文学修辞批评在“新时期”的出场,标志着中国当代文学批评的一次质的飞跃。

Abstract: 1Rhetorical criticism of literature puts foundation on textual analysis. A rhetorical conscious is indispensable in this critical method. Rhetorical analysis had been used as one of the basic methods in literary studies in ancient China. It was also a very important critical methods in the west, especially in 20th century. Because of being in conflict with the popular concepts, the method of rhetorical analysis in literary criticisms had almost been forgotten by our critics in the most years of last century .

2) The re-appearance of literary rhetorical criticisms in 1980’s had been a difficult course. The Literary Rhetorical Criticisms have connections to the literary creations, literary ideas and the methods of literature criticism .It’s appearance in The New Period had been along with the decline of traditional literary conceptions, the sticking out of formal elements in literary works and more and more introductions of western formalist literary theories in 20th century. It was mainly in the criticism about Wang Meng’s works before the middle of 1980’s, and It was in the criticism about pioneer writers in the late years of 1980’s .

3)Without rhetorical analysis, the methods of literary criticisms such as social criticism, ideological criticism and cultural criticism will be subjective and arbitrary, and lost their scientific characters. Due to the absence of the rhetorical consciousness, the efforts to built learned rules in literary criticism since 1980s haven gotten expectant results. The Literary Rhetorical Criticisms had given a virtual progress to Chinese contemporary literary criticism.

从作品到文本—兼论俄国形式主义、新批评、结构主义文学文本观的异同

董希文 鲁东大学文学院

提要:一种理论认识的产生往往与研究任务有密切联系。20世纪社会历史变迁以及对文学批评的重新定位导致了文本理论的勃兴,实现了从作品到文本根本转换。文本理论肇事于俄国形式主义,历经新批评,至结构主义,终于蔚为大观。但三种理论同中有异,既有因循,又有超越,共同丰富、发展着文学文本理论。

Abstract: The upsurge of one theory ties up the study mission. The vigorous development of text theories is derived from the flux of society and renewable orientation to literary critic in 20th century, and it brings on the great changes in the fields of literary theory: from work to text. The text theory is formed from Russian Formalism, go through New criticism, and present a splendid sight in Structuralism. There are some differences among them, the temporization is as much as the transcendent, but they enrich and develop the text theory together.

文学意象的生成与命名—探讨文学理论的一个基本概念 孙春旻 广东技术师范学院文学院

提要:文本中并不存在已经完成的一成不变的文学意象,只存在可能生成文学意象的某些等待解读的话语节点。文学意象以语词及其所唤起的心理视象(即语象)为依托,以语象背后隐藏的丰富的精神内涵和文化密码为潜在视域,是在世界、作者、文本、读者的多向对话中被建构起来的具有超言越象特征的独特的艺术形象。由若干语象构成的语象链对意象的生成已有较明显的酝酿作用。整体的文本语境决定意象的独到意义。宏观的历史文化语境对意象生成的作用表现为能使一个词的意义涉及到“整个文明史”。用某一语词命名,这是语言艺术中的任何形象都不能摆脱的宿命,只要能保证阐释的深度,意象名称的简单化与类型化就不会成为理解意象的障碍。

Abstract: Completed and invariable literature imagery doesn’t actually exist in any text, which only possesses some language node waiting to be explained that could generate literature imagery. Relying on words and pictures produced in the minds of people reading or listening these words (verbal icon) as support, abundance spiritual connotation and cultural code hidden underneath verbal icon as potential field of vision, literature imagery, as a unique art image, constructed by world, author, text and reader in their multilateral dialogue, has certain characteristics beyond normal words and images. Verbal icon chain constituted by verbal icons clearly facilitates the generation of imagery. Context as a whole decides the unique meaning of imaginary. Macroscopically historical and cultural context has effects on generation of imagery at the level that a meaning of a word could be referred to “entire history of civilization”. Using a certain word to name an image is an irresistibility fate for any image in all language arts. The simplicity and typification of the name of imagery would not stand as obstacle in elucidating imagery.

略论中国美学思想中的审丑意识 王庆卫 华中师范大学文学院

提要:中国长期处在古典美学观念阶段,从现世人生或自然与社会规律的角度看待美丑,较早地以辨证的方法来分析和对待美与丑的关系、善与恶的关系,对丑是抱有一种宽容和包涵的态度的。明代以来,丑的地位上升,是伴随着个体意识的解放而发生的;然而传统的审美观念没有被丑的兴起所根本动摇。清代中后期随着西方思想的传入,美与丑的观念开始被置于学科的视野下得以分析和梳理。

Abstract: Chinese aesthetic had been in classic aesthetic step for a long time, and it looked on ‘ugly’ from the viewpoint of human life or rules of society, analyzed the relation of beauty and ugly, good and evilness by dialectical measures. Since Ming dynasty, going with individual consciousness’ liberation, the statue of ‘ugly’ ascended. But traditional aesthetic conceptions had not been fluctuated. After Qing dynasty the western aesthetic theories had introduced in China and those concepts had been analyzed in viewpoint of aesthetic subject.

小说文本的两种实验读法—以余华的《活着》为例 王学海 浙江省海宁市文联张宗祥书画院

提要:文学作为文艺学杂以政治视阈的阅读文本,与文学作为审美意识形态的阅读文本,它对文本的阅读就会有两种不同的阅读效果,并影响着读者的思想。本文以余华的《活着》为例,来进行两次阅读的尝试,并不作结论。因为任何结论对于文本,也许都可能会产生误读。

Abstract: Literature, as a reading text of literary and artistic work from the political visual threshold and as a reading text of aesthetic ideology, has two different reading effects on the reading text and also influences readers’ thoughts. This paper tries to show the two different readings on Yu Hua’s novel Live and gives no conclusion, for any conclusion may lead to readers’ misunderstanding on the text.

从李健吾文学批评研究看当下文学批评的缺失 周敏 西师范大学文学院

提要:李健吾在二十世纪文学批评史上的地位是不容忽视和低估的,他的文学批评观、文学批评实践及其形成的文化背景,在二十世纪文学批评史上无疑是一个独特的存在,甚至从某种意义上说,真正从文学的角度、从审美的角度来从事批评,把批评当作一项严肃的事业、一种相对独立的理论创造的,李健吾或许是第一人。但这样一位在文学批评史上卓有建树的大家,长期以来在大陆却是孤寂的,没有受到应有的重视和研究,他在批评界的影响一直被人们淡忘。直到80年代初,随着《李健吾文学评论选》的出版,李健吾文学批评才开始进入人们的研究视野,他的批评风格才受到人们的追捧,但也仅是昙花一现,很快随着商品经济的到来,批评界又呈现出另一种局面。当下的文学批评更是存在着严重的危机,批评受大众文化、商业炒作影响比较大,批评家往往对作家没有深入了解、对作品没有精心的细读就妄发议论,用一种媚俗的套话追时尚、赶时髦,作出一些令人瞠目的褒贬。另一种则常常将批评对象作为印证某种理论的材料,缺乏创造性的由理论到作品,追根溯源,条分缕析,将文学划分成了具有固定规则的各种体裁,批评成为冷漠的言说和机械的剖析。这些现象的存在,无疑导致了批评的苍白和无力,使批评陷入难以自拔的困境。从李健吾文学批评研究我们可以发现李健吾的文学批评观所倡导的批评思想,以及李健吾文学批评所形成的批评特色,和他所具有的学养与修养,正是当下文学批评所缺失的。我们寻找“缺失”,针对“缺失”,寻求“重建”,不仅对我们反思20世纪的文学批评,建构当下的文学批评理论具有重要的价值,而且对当下多元的文学批评实践也具有启迪性的意义。

Abstract: Li Jianwu’s position in the history of literary criticism in 20th century should not be neglected and underrated. It is unique during the period that he formed his own view of literary criticism, the practice of literary criticism, and its culture background. In a sense, Li Jianwu may be the first one who took literary criticism as a serious career and a relative independent creation of theory from the standpoint of literature and aesthetic. However, such a great literary critic has been alone in China and his influence on literary criticism has been forgotten because of the lack of studying. Until the beginning of 1980s, with the publication of the Collection of Li Jianwu’s Literary Remarks, his literary criticism was firstly studied and his criticism style was followed by others. But just as a flash in the pan, with the coming of commercial economy, a new situation appeared in the field of literary criticism and even serious crisis exists in current criticism. Because of the influenced of the popular culture and commercial medium, critics remarked blithely without understanding the works deeply and read the works intensively. In order to catch up with fashion, they usually used the stereotype remarks to criticize the works. Another phenomenon was that they always took the criticism objects as materials to confirm some theories rather than creative analysis from theory to works. Classifying the literature into various styles with firm rules, they put criticism into cool remarks and mechanical analysis. No doubt, all these lead the pale and soft criticism to mire. After studying Li Jianwu’s literary criticism, we may understand that his criticism ideas, his literary criticism style, and his quality of his personality are exact what the current literary criticism lost. We should seek this losing and “rebuild” against “losing”. It is not only valuable for building the current literary criticism theories, but also full of inspiration to the present pluralism literary criticism practice.

论转义修辞观念的兴起及其理论价值 谭善明 聊城大学文学院

提要:“转义”一词在古典修辞学中是指词语的一种用法,即一个词语被改变了意义、用作它途。这种用法伴随着柏拉图对修辞学欺骗人、迷惑人的严厉批判而逐渐被认为是语词的误用。修辞学在经历了长期的压抑之后,突然成为一种革命性的力量,在20世纪的文学、哲学、历史学、社会学等领域中大显手身,它通过在话语中的建构和解构作用,以一种审美的冲动不断打破、翻新主观性的“真理”,这正得益于转义修辞观念的确立。有两个源头共同促进了这场声势浩大的运动,第一个是尼采的思想,第二个则是索绪尔开始的语言学转向。尼采认为语言是修辞,修辞的主要手段是转义,一切词语都是转义;转义正是通过不停地制造差异,以感性的直接性和主观的任意性,将语言变成修辞艺术活动的场所。索绪尔对能指和所指进行区分,将语言符号的指称看作是任意的和约定的,这就否定了词语与事物之间的本质符合论,一方面从结构上规定了语言表达的可能性,另一方面也为语词的转换提供了开放性;结构主义后来砸碎了“能指-所指”的锁链,在一个多元的、变动的话语世界中为修辞力量的发挥提供了新的契机。

这种修辞观念认为,任何话语的生成都是以审美的方式对本义的超越、反对和颠覆,在解构一种认知观念的同时,也建构了新的认知观念,这些都是在修辞式的艺术中完成的。从巴特、福柯、德里达、德曼和米勒等人的理论中可以看出,转义修辞观念正体现了当代文化的特殊性,那就是话语中心的游走。修辞现在作为一种解构性的力量加入了审美与认知的较量,在对真理和权力的反叛中,修辞既是因又是果:作为因,它在直觉中创造变换无定的转义以复活所有枯萎了的幻象;作为果,它在快乐中展示自命为谎言的真理,这就是自愿撒谎的审美幻象,这种快乐也就是一种艺术快乐。转义产生之际,就是一种认知对另一种认知的反抗,也就是新一轮审美过程开始之时。

AbstractThe trope means the usage of the words in classic rhetoric, that, a words meaning is changed and is used in an other way. This usage is treated as an abuse of words because of Platos strict criticism that the rhetoric is cheating and blindfolding. The rhetoric becomes revolutionary strength suddenly after long oppression, which plays an important role in literature, philosophy, history, sociology and so on in the 20th century. The rhetoric, benefit from the establishment of the idea of the trope, continually destroys and renews the subjective truth aesthetically through the construction and deconstruction in discourse. There are two originations propelling this huge movement: First, Nietzsche’s thought; second, the language conversion from Saussure. Nietzsche believes that the language is the rhetoric, that the trope is the most important way in the rhetoric and that all the words are trope, as well as that the trope makes the language a place of rhetoric arts through causing difference frequently. Differentiating the signifier and the signified, Saussure regards the language as arbitrary and conventional, so as to reject the essence agreement between the words and the objects. The probability of expression is given structurally, as well as the space of word’s conversion is supplied. Structuralism breaks the relation of the signifier and the signified, providing new opportunity for rhetoric’s action in a pluralist and movable discourse world.

This rhetoric idea insists that, in the rhetoric art, each generation of discourse is to surpass and to oppose and to overthrow the original meaning aesthetically, and that the new cognition idea is constructed while the old is deconstructed. From the thought of Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, De Man and Miller, we find that the rhetoric of the trope shows the specialty of contemporary culture, that is the changeable of the discourse centre. The rhetoric now joins in the fight between the aesthetic and the cognition with a deconstructive power. In the rebellion against the truth and the authority, the rhetoric is the cause and the result: As the cause, it creates changeable tropes so as to revive the faded image in intuition; as the result, it shows the truth which thinks itself falsehood in pleasure. While the trope generates, the new cognition resists another one, so comes the new aesthetic process.

文学研究范式:从“内结构”到“外结构” 殷曼楟 南京大学哲学系

提要:自90年代以来,我国文学创作及文学研究的最大挑战莫过于文学场自身、及其与文化生产场之间的关系所发生的重大转变。例如在整个文化生产场中,专业评论机制权威的相对紧缩和集中;在新兴传播媒介之中,当部分研究话语绕过“专业机制”的中介,直接与匿名的大众短兵相接时,它们所遭遇的“胜利”与“尴尬”等等。这言说语境上一系列的巨变,直接要求并导致了文学创作、及文学研究策略上的调整。这标志并要求了文学研究范式从内结构向外结构的转换。即从80年代以作品为中心的研究方式,转向与之关联的体制、文化、历史等更宽泛层面的讨论。对于这种“外结构”式的文学研究范式,我们可以考虑从以下路径来进入:

①从程序主义的角度来看文学。当下,我们已经从传统的对作品“是什么”的定性分析,转向了对其如何最终成为“作品”的问题讨论。也就是说,当下,一部作品只有在异化为某一文化事件后,才能更有效地成为文学研究的素材。在此过程中,我们看到的不只是作品本身的结构和思想,而是渗透于其中的各种使之合法化的节点。

②从文化的角度来看文学。程序主义路径并非空穴来风,它是随着文学在文化场中所扮演的角色的转换而显现的。90年代以来,文学在建构我们经验中所扮演的角色发生了转变。如果说在80年代,文学作品构成了建构中国人文化品格的某种指导性经验;那么90年代后,随着信息大爆炸时代的到来,文学创作所面对的是早已携带着诸多经验的读者,以及以更强势的力度加入到建构大众经验中的整个文化生产领域。这样,文学研究若想坚持其介入性的、批判性的职能就必须跳出“内结构”的研究范式。

③从历史的角度来看文学。在短短地30年里,我国文学场的巨变对于今天的研究者来说不啻为一种机遇。正是在这种巨变中,我们的思索得以向纵深处拓展。文学从新时期到新世纪的变化以最鲜活的形态向我们展示了一种历史性。这不再是传统的线性艺术史的梳理方式,而是一种反思式艺术史的开端。我们对王朔“触电”“开骂”事件的解析,对“百家讲坛”热潮的反思也有助于拨开“内结构”分析下文学研究的部分迷雾,透视将文学与社会相关联的体制,及其转化的轨迹。

AbstractSince the 1990s, the biggest challenge of our literature and literary studies presents. It comes from the literary field itself, and its relationship with the field of cultural production. For example, in the field of cultural production, there is more contracted and centralized authority in the literature institution. In the emerging media field, when some discourses meet their anonymous audiences directly while bypassing the professional institution, they have suffered “victory" or "embarrassing", etc. The changing context requests and leads to the adjustments of the strategies in the literature creation and correlative studies. We can see that the paradigm of our literature studies is leaving the text-centered approach, that is, from the intra-structure to the extra-structure. Now, we could consider this kind of extra-structure in the following three ways.

First, we can catch on it from the perspective of the proceduralism. We have come to a new way of studying the literature, that is, how a literary work comes into being? At present, a work would help our studies more effectively, only when the work is converted into some kind of cultural affairs. In this process, we pay attention to those factors which confer the status of the works.

Second, we can consider it from a cultural point of view. The approach of the proceduralism bases on the role of the literature in the cultural field. In the 1980s, it was the literary works that constructed our experiences to a considerable degree. And in the 1990s, the literary works have to face their readers who have had been constructed with other experiences. Furthermore, they could not neglect the whole cultural production field which constructs the readers’ experiences powerfully. So the literary studies must set aside the paradigm of intra-structure, if they want to uphold the critical functions.

Third, we can do from a historical point of view. For us, the shift in the last 30 years is some kind of opportunity. The literature turn from the new era to the new century display the literary history in the most vivid way. This is no longer the kind of linear literary history, but a history with reflection. By this way, we are able to penetrate into the institution which connect the literature to society, and grasp the track of its conversion.

压抑性反升华:齐泽克的创造性再读 徐敏 华中师范大学文学院

提要:本文通过对“无意识”这一精神分析重要概念从弗洛伊德到拉康,再到齐泽克的不断发展和变化所作的梳理,阐明了“压抑性反升华”理论的形成过程、基本内涵和主要贡献,从而揭示“创造性再读”在西方文学理论生产过程中的重要作用,对于当代文论发展的重要意义。

“解构”语境中的人道主义 付立峰 云南大学中文系

提要:阿伦·布洛克在《西方人文主义传统》中把海德格尔等人称之为“新版本人文主义”,但没有对此作具体讨论,更没有涉及德里达的“解构”思想。本文则由此而试图探讨:海德格尔与德里达对西方人道主义的“解构”到底是不是一种人道主义,若是,那么它们在何种意义上是人道主义的?实际上,人道主义并不是“一种主义”,而是指形形色色的人道主义,它们围绕着人的价值而展开的持续争论。依照海德格尔的看法,传统的人道主义乃是形而上学,它诞生于“存在的遗忘”,如此一来,它非但不能真正维护“人之人道”,反而将西方世界引入虚无主义的歧途,而“解构”则是通过将“此在”带向“存在”,从而对人道主义进行正本清源。

德里达汲取了海氏的“解构”之思,但在德里达看来,海氏的“存在”仍然是欧洲中心主义的与形而上学的,“存在”的“呼声”依然会把人类引向歧途。不是因为形而上学的人道主义遗忘了“存在”,而是因为它遗忘了那个在“存在”与“存在者”之间的“差异”,所以才无法克服“虚无主义”。

目前国内学界存在着对“解构”的误解,即简单地将其视为“消解”、“否定”,由此断定“解构”本身就是一种“虚无主义”、“相对主义”。德里达反复辩解“解构不是拆毁或破坏”,“解构在任何时候都是属于‘是’,属于对生命的肯定。”实际上,“解构”是对人的价值及生活世界所进行的不断批判和重建,以此来克服虚无主义。人道主义的核心要素就是关注价值的生成,并对此生成着的价值给于持续的警惕、反省和批评,而非僵化的价值信条。正如萨义德所说,这种批评是“寻求自由、启蒙、更大的力量”。从这个意义上来说,“解构”乃是地地道道的人道主义。

在“世界经济宗教”的背景下,人文学科在大学中的边缘化是个不争的事实,并且诱发了学界自身人文信念的丢失。真正地切入“解构”思想而非盲目地拒斥,可以激发中国学界对自身人道主义传统的批判性重建。

Abstract: Alan Bullock defined Heideger’s thought as “a new edition of humanism” in his work The Humanist Tradition in the West , but he did not expound it, let alone the Desconstrution thought of Derrida. The focus of this paper is that whether the deconstruction of western humanism by Hedegger and Derrida can be called humanism or not. If it is, in what sense can it be called humanism?

As a matter of fact, humanism is not a doctrine but various kinds of continuous discussions on the value of human being. In Heidegger’s opinion, traditional humanism belong to Metaphysics and it comes from the neglect of being. As a result, it do not uphold “humanism of human being” but lead the western world to nihilism. On the contrary, Desconstruction correct humanism by guiding “Dasein” to “being”.

Derrida drawed Heidegger’s thought of desconstruction. However, according to Derrida, “being” in Heidegger’s thought is still European-centered and metaphysical, and the call of being still leads human being to the wrong way. It is not because the metaphysical humanism neglect “being” but it neglect the “differance” between “being” and “entity” that the metaphysical humanism can not overcome nihilism.

There is a misunderstanding of Desconstruction in Chinese academic circles by simply define it as clearing-up or negation and thus conclude Deconstruction belongs to nihilism, relativism. Derrida continually explain that “Desconstruction is not taking-apart or destroying”, and “Desconstruction belongs to ‘Be’ in any time and it is the confirmation of life”. In fact, Desconstruction overcomes nihilism by continual criticism and reconstruction on the value of human being and their world. The core factor of humanism is the concentration for the becoming of value and the continuous alertintrospection and criticism of the value, but not the rigid doctrine of value. Just like what E·W·Said says, this criticism search for freedom, enlightment and more powerful strength”. From this point of view, Desconstruction belongs to humanism in the true sense.

In the background of “religion of world-wide econmy”, it is true that the humanities have been marginalized and this have induced humanism lost in academic circles. The appropriate understanding of Desconstruction rather than blindly repelling it may arouse the critical reconstruction of humanism tradition in china.

文学理论与批评具有政治性--特里·伊格尔顿文艺思想学习札记 刘文斌 内蒙古师范大学

提要:伊格尔顿对文学与意识形态的基本看法可以归纳为:文学“就是一种意识形态”;“纯”文学理论织是一种学术神话;根本就没有“纯”文学价值评定或解释这么回事。伊格尔顿重视文学批评的实践性和革命性,主张文学批评要有助于人类的解放事业,他为文学批评规定了意识形态和政治性的任务。近年来出现一些贬低马克思主义文论的论调,应当认真学习伊格尔顿关于文学同政治的关系的论述,从中获取有益的借鉴。

西方视域中的意象与幻象—以朗格美学为研究对象 谢冬冰 江苏广播电视大学传媒艺术系

提要:朗格美学中,表象、意象和幻像是经常使用的概念,但她本人没有对这三个概念做过明确区分。本文认为,表象偏重于可视的外观形象,在形象来源上依赖于视觉感官,意象可以看作是一个大于或包含表象的概念,它既指可视的视觉形象,也指意识中来自幻想的或清晰或模糊的形象,就是“意中之像”,幻像则偏重艺术形象和现实形象的区别,朗格把和现实区别的进入艺术的一切形象都称为幻像,她认为艺术中的一切形象都是虚幻的,艺术所表现的是一种虚幻的真实。幻像的实质是一种“他者”,她把幻像分为“一级幻像”和“二级幻像”。从涵义上看,朗格使用的这些概念在中国古代美学范畴中都可找出与之对举的言说方式。

Abstract: In Langer’s aesthetic theories, presentation, image and illusion are three notions frequently mentioned. However, an accurate distinction among them is not made by her. In the author’s view, presentation focuses on visual and outward form, and its source relies on visual sense; image can be perceived as a conception larger than or embodies presentation, which refers either to the visual form, or to the vague or clear fancy form in one’s consciousness; illusion stresses the difference between artistic and realistic forms. According to Langer, forms separating from the realistic ones and thus belonging to artistic types are illusions. She argues that all forms of art are imaginary, and what art expresses is illusory truth. The essence of illusion is otherness”. Langer divides illusion into “first-level” and “second-level”. From the perspective of connotation, the above conceptions proposed by Langer find their counterparts in Chinese ancient atheistic category.

找寻一个研究的参照系——日本美学艺术学的研究路径及现状 梁艳萍 湖北大学中文系

提要:上世纪九十年代以来,关于美学、文艺学的论争一直断续进行,关于“实践美学”、关于“中国文论的‘失语’与‘重建’”、关于“大众文化”、关于“马克思主义美学、文艺学体系”、关于“日常生活审美化”和“文艺学转向”、关于“现代性反思与新启蒙主义”、关于“后殖民主义、民族主义及第三世界批评”的等等论争,有很多学者参与讨论。近年来,笔者在日本东京大学研究期间,对日本学者的研究路径与方法有所关注,希望以此作为参照,来反观我们的美学、文艺学研究。

西方美学艺术学研究从19世纪末期20世纪初传入日本之后,通过西周的定名,フェノロサ、中江兆明、森鸥外、高村光太郎、大村西崖等人的翻译介绍,经过了大塚保治的东京大学美学讲座——美的性质和研究方法的确立和深田康算“京都学派”的建立,走过了美学的“定名”、“迅速欧化期(1868-1878)”、“反国粹期(1878-1888)”之后,日本美学一直沿着美学艺术学研究的路径开拓前行。

日本学者很多认为美学研究有三种方法——心理学、社会学、哲学,因此,日本美学艺术学研究的方法较多沿袭此三种方法。如:藤田一美主持的文部省基础研究项目《全球化状态下的艺术理论与伦理》,这个项目集中了东京大学、庆应义塾大学、日本大学、早稻田大学的学者,主要研究从如下几条路径延伸、展开——二十世纪世界文化的理论与伦理;西洋艺术美学与市民、国家、政治、伦理;东亚美学的构造与解析、媒介与占有等。

考据性研究是日本学者的强项,上个世纪90年代以来,日本学者更加注重资料的考据研究与翻译,个体美学艺术家的研究一般都有年谱与著作列表。如西村清和翻译的卡·索尔格《美学概论》、桑木务翻译的海德格尔的《存在与时间》以及大量的个体美学家研究专著中,都有详尽的年谱和著作编目和研究目录。

200610月在大阪大学召开了第57届全国美学大会。研究发表主要有以下几个层面:日本审美意识与场的理论—物哀与心知(大石昌史);东亚美术与艺术的历史样式与展开(立入正之,要真理子,吴永三等);艺术的全球化与本土性——艺术创作理论的理论与现场(岩城见一,铃木博之等);西洋音乐、摄影美学研究(小宫山晶子,篠田大基,冈本圆太,金日林等);以及个体美学、艺术家研究——康德、波纳文图拉、萨特、巴赫、瓦格纳、鸭长明、东山魁夷、芥川龙之介——研究(古川裕朗,郡田尚子,门间仁史,玉村恭,高桥奈保子等)。

日本马克思主义美学作为西方美学、艺术学研究的一个分支,主要表现“马克思主义美学的革命与转向”的研究,柄谷行人的《马克思:其可能性的中心》;大泽正道的《游戏与劳动的辩证法》;上野俊树的《结构主义与马克思主义:阿尔都塞与普朗查斯》;森山重雄《作为文学的革命的转向:日本马克思主义文学》;黑田宽一编著的《马克思主义文艺复兴》、浅田彰的《马克思的现在》等等。

Abstract: The debate about esthetics and the literature and art continuously carried on. Since 1990's. A great deal of scholars took part in the argumentation of practice esthetics, reconstructs about Chinese literature theory, mass culture, the system of literature and art contained in Marxism esthetics, aesthetic of daily life and the change of theory of literature and art, modernity reconsidering and new initiation principle, as well as post- colonialism, nationalism and the third world criticism. Scholars reconsidered the Chinese literature and art research history and the present situation, attempts to pursue the new way of esthetics and the literature and art research. The Japanese esthetics art research developed smoothly in recent years. In the study period in Tokyo university in Japan, I had pay attention to the Japanese scholar's research way and the method, the author hoped to take it as the reference, to observed our esthetics and the research of literature and art.

Since the study of western esthetics spreads to Japan in the late 19th century and the beginning of 20th century,NIXISYUU named it, Earnest Fenollosa [ フェノロサ] Nakae tokiake,Mori rintarouTakamura koutarou Oomura Nshige developed the translation. Otuka Yashiji blazon forth the study by a course of lecture ­­named “the foundation of esthetics’ character and study” and Fukada yasukazu who formed the Tokyo school, the study went through the naming period, the quick Occidental period, the anti-quintessence of a country period, the Japanese esthetic carried on its road by the study of esthetic and art study.

Many Japanese scholars thought esthetics research has three methods, psychology, sociology and philosophy. Therefore, the Japanese esthetics study and art research follows the three methods much. For instance, the basic study item “the theory and ethic of art under the circumstance of globalize” of Ministry of Education,Culture,Sports,Scienceand Technology holds by Fujita Kazuyoshi collects scholars of UNIVERSITY TOKYOU, UNIVERSITY KEIO, UNIVERSITY WASEDA, UNIVERSITY NIHON,they took their study from the next several ways: World’s culture theory and ethic; western art and esthetic and civilian, country, politics and ethic; the parse media and possess of esthetics of eastern Asia.

The textual criticism research is the Japanese scholar's strong point, since the last 90’s, Japanese scholars paidd more attention to the material the textual criticism research and the translation. Generally the individual esthetics artist's research has its own biographical chronology and work tabulation. For example, "Esthetics Introduction" of Karl Solger translated by NISHIMURA Kiyokazu NIXIMURA and the "Existence And Time" of Heidegger translated by Kuwaki Tsutomu, and the massive monographs of individual estheticians all have the exhaustive biographical chronology and the work catalog of the research.

Oct.7th ,2006 to Oct. 9th ,2006, the 57th national esthetics conference of Japan was held in Osaka University. Almost all the Japanese esthetics research experts, the scholars and the large number of students had gathered together. Papers of the conference divided into the research papers and the graduate student papers publication. The publication included several aspects, such as “The theory about the Japanese aesthetic consciousness”(Ooishi Akirasi);“ The historical mode and development of Eastern Asian art”(Tateiri Seishi and Kaname Mariko and Goensou)

The artistic globalization and the aboriginality ,the theory and scene of art creation theory Iwaki Kenichiand Susuki Hirozuki ; Western music, photographic esthetics research Komiyama Akiko and Sasada ōki and Okamoto Maruta, Kimu hirin and so on) as well as individual esthetics and the artist study - - the study of Kant, Bonaventura, Sartre, Bach, Wagner, Kamo tyounei, Higashiyama Kaii,Akutagawa RyounoshigeKoga yurougunda HisakoKatoma NinshiTamamura KiyouTakahashi Nayasugo and so on.)

As one of the study of Western esthetics and arts, the main performance of Japanese Marxism esthetic arts researches are Karatani kōjin’s “Marx: Its possible center” ,Ootaku Seimiti’“Dialectics of play and work”,Ueno oshiki“Structuralism and Marxism: Althusser and Poulantzas”,Moriyama Shikio’“As the change of the literature revolution : Marxism literature in Japan”, Kurada Hiroiti’“ Marxism Renaissance”,Asada Akira(shō)’“ Marx's Present” and so on.

循名责实、纵横交织——新世纪中国美学研究的拓展 祁志祥 上海财经大学中文系

提要:新时期以来,中国美学研究取得了令人瞩目的成果,不过并非没有进一步作为的余地。新世纪的中国美学研究如何开辟一块新的天地?我以为,回归美学之父鲍姆嘉通,按照美学学科的本有之义,进行名副其实的中国美学研究,并且把横与纵、论与史真正结合起来,以论带史,以史证论,相互促进,想必会为我们的中国美学研究增添新的景观。

In the Chinese ancient opinion, the satisfied tease is regarded as beauty, while the beauty is not supposed to be the patent of vision and sense of hearing. The tease of beauty comes from not only objective forms but also materialization of hearts ideas, specially morality ideas. In the reification of hearts ideas and moral ideas, subjects and objects strike a responsive chord by their same structure, which give birth to beauty. The feature of the Chinese ancient theory of beauty decides the characteristic of the theory about the sense of beauty. Beauty is considered as a sort of tease, so sense of beauty is called as tasting. Heart is supposed to be a sort of beauty, so the way of appreciating beauty must be to watch with ones heart. Morality is regarded as beauty, so the state of heart about getting beauty must be empty and quiet. In addition, the work analyses closely the differences between the theories of beauty from the Confucian school, Taoism school and Buddhism. The Confucian school considers the natural symbol of morality, the feelings, the harmony and the form conforming with goals as the beauty. Taoism school regards empty, wonderful, light, soft, natural, vitality, agreeable as the beautiful. Buddhism supposes empty, quiet, death and their symbols such s circle and light to be beautiful, while supposing all phenomenon of the material beauty to be unreal illusions.

神话与文学批评 胡继华 北京第二外国语学院比较文学与跨文化所

提要:神话被提升到人类精神现象的历史高度而获得思想史的价值,是20世纪人文学术的一项巨大的成就。

神话理论隐含着一个对人类生存处境的基本判断:人类总是无法控制自己的生存处境。无法控制自己的生存处境,就无奈于精神恐惧。正是在这么一个强有力的逻辑前提下,德国思想家汉斯·布鲁门贝格提出了“神话劳作”的思想。他首先追问,神话为什么并没有随着启蒙的展开和理性的凯旋而化为云烟消散?他的回答是,人类总是无法控制自己的生存环境,无法驾御他所面对的世界,无法排遣对于紊乱的恐惧。这种无法控制的环境、无法驾御的世界和无法排遣的恐惧,构成了一种连尼采的“超人”也敌不过的绝对威权和现实威权。他生造了“现实的专制主义”一词来表达这么一种人类生存处境。而正是为了回应“现实的专制主义”,人类就凭借了神话的力量,即通过神话的劳作来排遣深渊一般的生存恐惧。神话没有历史,只是在被不断地讲述,一遍一遍地重复的故事将恐惧感渐渐消解。不断讲述,无限重复,这就是神话的劳作。神话在劳作之中总是言过其实,总是锺实增华,布鲁门贝格将这种情形称之为“语词进化论”。换句话说,没有历史的神话提供了一种语词结晶物,它便成为我们的现代性考古的对象。布鲁门贝格断言,神话没有终结于逻各斯,或者被逻各斯替代;相反,神话成为人类集体之梦的残像余韵,以及古代世界宇宙观的活的形象。

蕴涵于神话中的神圣与呈现在教义之中的神圣绝不可同日而语。神话是多元的景象,而教义则是一元的禁令,或者说神话允许一切只禁止一宗,而教义禁止一切只允许一宗,二者形若冰炭,判若云泥。神话代表一种丰富的世界观而呈现为活生生的象征符号,表示人类的记忆永远是多义的。因而神话抗拒单一的阐释,从而为文化共同体特别是那些弱势的文化共同体提供了向导,让他们在主流文化之内寻求自我定位,在同一的霸权下写出异端的权力。

文本分析可能神话理论,批评实践可以提升理论。第一个个案是普罗米修斯神话,它的不断被重述说明人类如何为了排遣“现实专制主义”及其带来的恐惧而展示出其中的复杂维度。第二个个案是俄狄浦斯-哈姆雷特神话,它的不断被重述说明人类如何在神话宇宙观中追寻现代的合法性的。

关于文学批评学学科理论建构的几点思考 顾凤威 广西师范学院

提要:文学批评是对文学作品的审美批评与判断,即对文学创新属性的认识。它和批评对象的关系是一种“咬定青山不放松”的执着,它更是一种“平等—对话—沟通”所最终结成的统一和融合。批评家的社会和历史的责任感,则是脱离庸名俗利的境界的高屋建瓴。

文学批评的本质:文学批评应是对“这一个”的审美发现与创新判断。在进行文学批评时,既不能离开作品,也不能离开作者和时代语境,为此,批评者与文本对话,才会有理有据、有分析、有说服力地评价作品的历史需要与历史局限性,揭示作品的内蕴与价值。在整个批评的言说中,批评家的个性,也得到了充分的表现和张扬。如果把文学创作、文学批评,和文学创作与批评的社会效应作为一个系统,那么,文学批评是对文学作品的意识形态评价,通过评价,有利于指导创作,引导接受特别是鉴赏性接受,推动一定性质文学的繁荣发展,从而影响一定的政治和经济。

文学批评的标准:有学者把批评标准概括为文学性、审美性、社会综合性等三个方面。笔者认为把文学性和审美性并列,完全是多余的。因为文学作品的“文学性”,正是文学作品的“审美性”得以产生的条件,文学作品的“审美性”则是文学作品“文学性”作用的结果。而综合性以为可以囊括文学与经济、政治、哲学、历史、宗教、文化等方方面面也是不科学的,因为过于宽泛的特点等于没有特点。马克思主义美学的和历史的以及二者相统一的原则,是一个可以涵盖一切文学文本的总原则。在这个总原则的指导下,被评价对象的创新性、多样性、复杂性等,则由具体对象确定。

文学批评的主体:在艺术领域内,“匠”和“家”有显著区别。“匠”是操作型的,“家”是创造型的。作为不是“匠”而是“家”的批评家,他们的产品应当独具慧眼,有独到之见解,要评得作者心跳,令读者和匠们自愧不如。在世界文学批评史上,有高度关注文学与社会关系、文学与人民关系,善于从文本中发现作家创新因素的敏锐审美鉴赏力的别、车、杜那样的批评主体;也有对自己的批评对象冷漠、完全不作价值判断的罗兰·巴尔特那样的批评主体。文学批评家的主体性或个性,是在与批评对象的“对话”中,在文学批评的反复实践中形成的。当文学批评家的批评无论在批评对象的审美形式和审美内蕴以及批评文字的技巧性都越来越契合文学批评的本质要求——创新时,他(她)们的主体性或个性就愈独特鲜明。批评家的主体性和个性,并不是倚“势”欺人或夸夸其谈,相反,它需要的是实事求是,以理服人。

Abstract: The literary criticism refers to the aesthetic criticism and judgment of the literary works, in other words, it is the study of the literature innovation's attribute. It means the perseverance of “sticking to the goal”. Moreover, it is finally the union and the integration of “equality—conversation--communication”. Critics’ sense of social and historical responsibilities is the representation of their noble acme, divorcing from the vulgarism.

About the Nature of Literary Criticism:Literary criticism should be the beauty appreciation and innovation judgment which aim at “this one”. When we working at literary criticism, we not only hold the work firmly, but also stick to author and the ages of language environment. As a result, critics only talk to his article that could values the work's historical need and shortage basically, analysis and personally. And he could explains the work's meaning and value. In the whole talking of criticism, critic's character could performance entirely. If we take literature creation, literature criticism and their social effects together, the literature criticism is the evaluation of the work's consciousness and appearance. And make use of this evaluation, it's advantageous to leading creation and acceptation, especially appreciate acceptation. Therefore it develop some natures' work quickly and finally effects politics and economy to some degree.

About the Standard of Literary Criticism:Some scholars generalized the standard of criticism to three factors――literature, appreciation and comprehension. In my opinion, it's surplus to parallel the literature and appreciation. Because the literature of literary work is the condition that the appreciation of literary work could be birthed, and the latter is the former's result.It's non-science to think that the social comprehension include literature, economy, politics, philosophy, history, religion and culture, and so on. Because too wild of the characteristic mean nothing.The principle of Marist esthetics, history and the combination of both is a whole principle that could include everything of literary work. Following this one, the invocation, variety and comprehension of criticism object are decided by concrete object.

About the subject of literary criticism:In the field of art, there's obvious difference between craftsman and expert. Craftsman belongs to operation and expert belongs to innovation. Being expert, critic's work should outstanding and have unique insight, it palpitate author's heart, make reader and craftsman feeling not equal to himself from insight. In the historical of literary criticism, there are criticism subject who highly focus on the relationship of literature and society, literature and people, and criticism subject who have a sharply appreciate ability that are good at discovering author's innovation factor in one side, ex. Bie, Che, Du. In another side, there is criticism subject who inhospitality treat his critic object and absolutely make nothing of his judgment of value, such as Man orchid. Critic's nature of subject and character is building again and again in the practice of literary criticism, and in the talking to criticism object. When literary critic's judgment ability growing to fit the nature request of literary criticism ---- innovation, their subjection and character growing clearly and specially, including not only the criticism object's appreciation form and content, but also his technique of using appreciation words. Critic's nature of subject and character need practical and realistic, conviction with basis, but also depend on vehemence to overwhelming other or talking without basis.

文本基础主义论 王汶成 山东大学文艺美学研究中心

提要:这里所说的文本基础主义不同于新批评的“文本中心主义”。新批评的文本中心主义把文本看作是完全封闭的语言结构,认为对文本意义的阐释只是通过对文本语言结构的分析就足够了,至于对文本所赖以产生的社会历史文化背景的研究则是可有可无,无关紧要的,甚至对文本的写作者和接受者的研究也是多余的,被斥之为“意图谬误”和“感受谬误”。文本中心主义几乎割断了文本的所有的外部联系,把文本作为一个完全孤立的物品抽取出来进行研究,这种研究在文本语言结构这一个方面的确深入了,但同时也在学理上迷失于文本之所以存在的那些必然的外部联系之中。而文本基础主义是以承认文本的所有必然的和可能的外部联系为前提的,它认为文本不是一个孤立的自足的实体性的存在,而是一个与整个外部世界、创作主体、接受主体、其他相关文本有着不可分割的普遍联系的全面开放式的关系性存在。正是以这种理念为前提,文本基础主义主张文学研究无论怎样向外拓展都始终不脱离文本研究这个基础。文本是文学的基础(不是中心,更不是本体),文本研究也是文学研究的基础。文学研究离开了文本研究的基础无异于文学研究的自虐和自戕。

文本基础主义的“文本”概念是与“语言”概念不可分的,没有语言就没有文本,犹如没有文本就没有文学。文本与语言互为载体。因此,文本基础主义反对目前流行的各种形式的“泛文本”概念,这种泛文本概念把一切即存的事实都看作是一种有待阐释的文本,如历史文本、社会文本、文化文本等等,这实际上就等于消解了语言文本的文本性和文本语言的语言性。泛文本概念仅仅是在比喻的意义上才能成立,而在严格的学理的意义上是不能成立的。所以泛文本概念实际上指的是一种“拟文本”。而文本基础主义说的文本则是指一切语言文本或能够表达意义的符号文本,所谓文学研究以文本研究为基础就是指以文学作品和与文学作品相关的语言文本为基础。

文本基础主义的理论要点主要是:

第一,文本基础主义坚守文学研究的学科本位。文学本身就是一种极为复杂的关系性存在,文学研究也必是一种综合性的跨学科研究。但是“跨”学科研究不是“跳”学科研究,文学研究的一只脚可以跨到或社会学、或心理学、或历史学、或政治学、或经济学、或文化学等等的领域,但它的另一只脚必须牢牢地踏在文本研究上,否则,文学研究就可能丧失属于自己的“根据地”和学科独立性,就可能沦为其他学科的附庸。文学研究的综合性当然也要求打通学科界限,但打通学科界限也不是不要学科界限,更不是自毁学科界限。文本基础主义在反对狭隘学科主义的同时,也以其文本研究的基础而坚守了文学研究的学科本位。

第二,文本基础主义坚守文学研究的实证原则。任何研究都要遵循科学研究的实证原则,文学研究也不例外。文学研究的实证性就来自与文本研究相关的大量的第一手的文学材料和文学经验,只有这种从文本研究中获得的材料和经验才能成为文学研究一切结论的最有说服力的实证性支持和依据。当前某些“跳”学科的文学研究和所谓打破学科边界的完全不要学科规限的文化研究,由于已经跳离和破除了文本研究这个基础,往往流于大而无当夸夸其谈和毫无实证根据的信口开河。这些实在都是一切学术研究的大忌。

第三,文本基础主义坚守文学研究的对话精神。任何文本都同其他文本构成一种历时态和共时态的纵横交叉的内在关联,都是一种所谓“间性文本”和“互文本”。文学研究只有以文本研究为基础,才能真正认识到任何文本都有存在的合法性,才能真正发现文本之间的内在性关联,才能真正建立起“间性文本”和“互文本”的现代观念,从而使文学研究贯穿一种现代的“兼容精神”和“对话精神”。而离开了文本研究的基础,就等于出让了文本的第一发言权,文学研究就只好依赖于单纯的思辨理性,依赖于具有当下权威性的观念和体系,这样一来,就很容易导向学术独断和权力话语。而这些也是束缚学术发展的大障。

第四,文本基础主义坚守文学研究的人文指向。文学是人学,文学无论怎么发展变化都不可能放弃为了人自身更完美、人的生活更幸福这一终极的追求和目标。文学史上所有经过了几十年、几百年乃至几千年的历史淘选而流传下来的文本,都是所谓经典文本,流传的时间越是久长,文本的经典性越强。过去、现在以至将来的所有具有经典性的文本都一定或多或少、或这样或那样地体现着文学的人文指归。从这个意义上说,文学的经典性就是文学的人文性。文本基础主义主张以文本研究为文学研究的基础,主要就是指研究那些经过了一定时期的优胜劣汰而传布下来的经典性文本,而不是指研究那些绝少人文气息的自生自灭的一过性文本,更不是指研究那些已被彻头彻尾物化了的纯粹以赚钱为目的文学垃圾。注意,我这里说的是“主要是指”,并不是说不能研究那些已经被物化了的文学读物,也不是说研究那样的文学读物没有价值。相反,这样的文学读物应该得到深入的研究,至少可以使我们在如何摆脱文学的物化倾向、回归文学的人学目标方面获得理论的参照和启示。因此,文本基础主义所主张的回到文本研究,绝不是像通常所理解的回到一种琐细的专业技术性研究,而是对文学的人文指向的一种更为切实的回归,因而也是对文学研究的人文指向的一种更为切实的回归。

比较视野中的文学理论教材编写 曾军 上海大学中文系

提要:针对近年来的文艺学学科反思,本文在中国二十世纪近百年文艺学学科发展史背景上,将新中国文学理论教材编写置于现代中国、前苏联和当代西方的比较视野中予以考察。认为,新中国草创时期的文学理论没有完全照搬“前苏联体系”,而是体现出了“中国化”的努力;八九十年代文学理论的繁荣呈现出明显的“美学化”倾向;近些年来尽管争论不断,但是文学理论的“文化化”趋势却是一致的。文学理论没有走向终结,而是在继续创新。

女性文学主体性论纲 李玲 北京语言大学人文学院

提要:本文是在目的论(teleology)层面上探索女性文学主体性建构的问题,是从可能的维度而非现实已然存在的状态探究女性文学的应然性质。

①隐含作者的女性主体性。作为确立女性文学内涵的女性主体性,无疑应是专指隐含作者的女性主体性,而非作品中女性人物的主体性或叙述者的主体性;而且,此种主体性应是剔除了霸权的、经过现代修正的主体性,因而实际上是一种主体间性。从表现对象来说,女性文学可以表现张扬女性主体性的生活场景,也可以表现女性主体性沉沦的图景;可以刻划具有女性主体意识的人物,也可以刻划无主体性的女性人物或反女性主体性的男性人物或倒置性承袭男性霸权的女性人物。关键是女性文学在观照各种生活场景和各色人物的时候,必须贯彻尊重女性主体性而并不建构任何霸权的价值立场。这种价值立场以各种方式渗透于文本中,终必是隐含作者的一种文化态度。关注叙述学理论,区分隐含作者立场与作品中人物立场的差别,可以有效地避免混淆作品价值取向与作品表现对象的失误。

②女性隐含作者与男性人物。当女性隐含作者面对作品中持霸权观念的男性人物时,其敏锐的批判态度中必然包含着深切的悲悯。对生命的大爱是女性文学的根基。当女性隐含作者面对作品中具有主体间性思维的男性时,其赞赏的态度中必然含着灵犀相通的喜悦。追寻“比较之前”体验到的终极价值,是女性文学的目的论意义。在目的论层面上,女性文学应能超越奴隶道德中的怨恨之气,而具备“与世界和实事本身直接沟通”的高贵气度。

③女性隐含作者与女性人物。隐含作者与人物即使同为女性,她们之间仍然不是未被分化的混沌的同一体,而是两个独立的主体。她们之间的关系也应该是主体间的关系。把女性人物视为女性隐含作者的同一体,是女性主体意识初步兴起时期的特征。女性文学主体意识比较成熟的作品中,女性隐含作者不仅与笔下男性人物而且与笔下女性人物构成主体间的对话关系,女性隐含作者对女性人物既有深层共鸣又有反思审视。

Abstract: The subjectivity of the feminine literature, which is the foundation of the feminine literature, refers to the subjectivity of the implied female author, rather than the subjectivity of the female character in or narrator of the writings. Indeed, the subjectivity of the feminine literature is a kind of inter-subjectivity, as it has been seceded from the hegemony. The feminine literature shall establish the dialogic relationship between implied female authors, and the female as well as the male characters. From the perspective of teleology, the feminine literature should watch the authentic male and female beings, and seek all possible dimensions of life so as to surpass the resentment.

差异与反思:叶维廉的传释学理论 张晓梅 中国社会科学院文学研究所

提要:叶维廉的学术研究大概包括依据其基本理论进行的比较诗学、比较文学批评实践、跨文化传递的批评理论和翻译实践三个部分。本文主要梳理了叶维廉的传释学观念。认为其独到之处表现在两个方面:一是对作者、作品和读者关系的独特理解;二是对传统和权威的批评与反思。

结构与世界 王先晋 武汉大学外语学院

提要:结构既自足又与世界曲径通幽。结构使我们了解世界并最终使我们生活在世界上。研究艺术作品的叙述结构与深层结构使我们贴近“全球”。构化艺术作品结构改变已扭曲的“社会结构与世界结构”。笔者以为结构研究家不仅需要带领我们去理清历史的因果,而且需要带领我们去经历新历史和“迷宫”。

无论是天赐神授的自然之物,还是人类介入的人为之物,结构是其最缜密的概念,其中艺术结构刚柔悉备,高华清逸。。我理解中的表层结构走向意味是通过背景下(场所)约定俗成的情节及时空结构符号的规约性。深层结构走向意味是通过人类学模式与作者的意识结构模式融合。A)深层结构是意义(味,情感)模式而非行动模式。它在艺术结构系统中尤为重要。深层结构的最佳状态能达到哲学的水准,达到宗教的水准。三者最佳状态是互通的。当艺术达到极致(深层结构)哲学宗教化不可避免。深层结构性质类似中国化的禅,它的否定和超越及亲征与前者有相通之处。B)人类学模式变异复杂及模糊性集中突显了艺术结构的开放性(不稳固性和涵盖性)。研究作品结构的过程主要是破解潜结构和深层结构。

总之我们越从人类与世界互惠的观念出发探索艺术结构,就越能摸清“大象”,人类需要一个“有机的体系……去使世界重新适合人的生存”。构化结构及信仰“系统”的认知范式使我们“出世”。我们中国人的思维模式更适配艺术结构研究方法的运用。特别中国人思维方式中最主要量素“变化性”,用来研究千奇百态的艺术结构更具适应性。

构化经典作品的结构不仅需要解读者的努力,而且需要能正确理解其的哲理时空。作品深层结构离开了哲理时空,就停止了生命,它还可能存在,但要停止发展。深层结构是同哲理时空一起发展的。

现代寓言呼唤“阐释理论”——新时期以降汉语叙事形式转型的理论诉求

冯尚 汕头大学中文系

提要:新时期文学叙事的目标之一是呈现人生现实的苦恼、社会的苦难,并且把启蒙主义作为观察和评论人生、社会的基本立场,在此基础上实现从文体到精神的转型,也就是象征主义的出现,这里所指是伤痕文学、反思文学和寻根文学,并且在寻根文学那里达到表现的极致,以至在“自然”的诗情画意中达到怡然自得的陶醉,似乎汉语叙事找到了呈现世界、表现自我的不二法门。“自然”再次以古典的温情和暖意弥漫在叙事文本的边边角角,以至文学“哲理”成为文学评价尺度的标高。

其实在思想上启蒙主义、叙事技术上象征主义的主流甚嚣尘上之时,对人生复杂性、世界诡异性把握的尝试一直是余波荡漾,更有甚者,就是循走在象征主义大道上的明锐的叙事者,也徘徊在寓言叙事的边缘,也就是已经具有了叙事的含混性,用学术术语就是隐喻性强烈而明确地显示出来。这就是张承志、莫言、韩少功等人的作品。执著于启蒙主义路上的韩少功,已经尝试把握“意象”,以为只有意象才能破解人生的吊诡。这里指的是他在《女女女》中创造的“鱼人”意象。

天空和大地已经黯淡之后,象征的依据分崩离析,终极的地平线也已经支离破碎,在审美世界已经没有了统一的力量,而这个精神的世界曾经由“自然”顽强地支撑着,而自然竟然无法面对变动不居,起落无定的世道人心。在一派机器轰鸣、技术作祟的田野、乡村、城市,诗意何在,诗人何为?主义、思想、理论真是“纷纷世上潮”。富裕、繁荣、文明的此情此景,哪里还有栖居之点?《九月寓言》讲述的就是这样的故事,它揭发了自然的虚伪,残酷和诱惑,重新把现代中国与战火纷飞的春秋战国时代勾连起来,再次使我们的文学回荡起“天道靡常”的神秘之声;同时,《九月寓言》重新提出“物象”的智慧之学,由此庄子的古典寓言观念重新成为当下寓言美学的基本参照。

Abstract: It was an aim of the novels of the New Epic to express life’s suffering and misery , the life and social problems were severely criticized by the authors from the views of enlightenment. They fulfiled a reform of a kind of literary forms. So that a symbolism was created by them. The school of Xungen (寻根派) represent main type of symbolism. Nature seemly become a panacea of solving social and self problems. So a quality suggestive of poetry or painting from nature becomes literary criterion. Philosophic theory of a text has been thought of the most important thing in literature.

In fact, though the enlightenment and the symbolism were becoming popular during the time, a school of narrating mysteriously nature and life is never disappear. Moreover, some authors expressed their feelings of nature with many and varied metaphors. Zhang Chengzhi(张承志), Moyan(莫言), and Han Shaogong(韩少功)are three typical characters of them. They made used of imagery(意象) to attempt to convey absurdity of life.

The earth has being undermined since modernization. Nature has not only hardly fully supported aesthetic activity, but also not comfort sad and uneasy men in our times. Modern machinery is capturing all many sides of our lives, so we have to ask these questions: where can our aesthetic feelings be created? What could do the truly poets in our times? The novel , Allegory of September, shows a cruelty, hypocrisy, and temptation from nature; it arouses readers to pay attention to the ancient wisdom of ‘visible phenomena(物象) in Chinese culture. So Chuang-tzus (庄子) theory of allegory nowadays start afresh the grounds to understand modern narrative poetics.

生态美学如何可能? 杨平 北京第二外国语学院跨文化研究所

提要:20世纪90年代以来,“生态美学”成为中国当代文艺美学“前沿问题”。然而,“生态美学”在学科概念、理论框架、阐释维度和学科定位都存在诸多问题。在理论层面上,“生态美学”的文化资源非常单一,“生态美学”与“生态美” “环境”、“生态”等概念也晦涩不清。在实践层面上,生态美学忽视了“应用美学”的维度,因此,缺乏现实的针对性。从理论的形态上看,有时,“生态美学”类似“纯粹哲学”,有时,“生态美学”类似“环境伦理学”。基于这些问题,本文从利奥波德的《沙乡年鉴》来理解“生态美学”的基本问题,尝试回答“生态美学”如何可能的问题。

论近30年中国儿童电影批评范式的流变 马力 沈阳师范大学文学院

提要:近30年是中国儿童电影批评最活跃的时期,不仅批评成果与日俱增,而且批评范式连番更迭。20世纪80年代中国儿童电影批评的主要范式是“求真型”批评,这种批评范式是改革开放以来,中国电影理论界接受了西方电影理论——法国安德烈·巴赞的“纪实理论”的影响,尽管中国理论界对巴赞存在着误读,但是它却“包含着一种空前的、对电影媒介的自觉”。这种批评范式以“真实”和“有用”作为“事实成规”,展开新时期以来的儿童电影批评,重在揭示电影作为一种虚拟的艺术与外部真实世界之间的关系,以“真实”、“有用”为美。新时期之初,中国儿童电影批评家就是以这种“求真型”批评取代了意识形态批评话语。

到了20世纪90年代“求真型”批评范式又被本体批评范式取而代之,这种批评范式同样是在西方本体批评方法的影响下形成的。它表明批评界已经开始将儿童电影当作一种独立的艺术形式来认识。中国儿童电影本体批评的关键词有三个:“成长”、“儿童情趣”、“艺术想象”。在对“成长”是中国儿童电影永恒的主题,本体批评的特色在于,批评家们从不同的视角切入文本,采用不同的批评理论作支撑,批评方法也不同,因此对“成长”的阐释各不相同,不但对不同的电影文本的阐释如此,对同一文本的阐释也如此。对“儿童情趣”的阐释则重在电影声画、电影语言等营造儿童情趣特殊手段的揭示上。“艺术想象”是儿童电影的核心元素。批评家们从剧本、情节结构、人物塑造、梦境、特技等各个方面来批评文本的想象力的重要性,抓住了儿童电影创作的关键问题。

20世纪90年代末至今中国儿童电影的文化批评方兴未艾。在批评新时期以来的中国儿童电影时,文化批评重在揭示电影中隐藏的文化内涵,以及它对儿童潜移默化的文化影响。关键词是种族、阶级和性别。批评家们结合电影创作实际,指出了中国儿童电影中一些西方孩子身上存在的西方白人是最优秀的种族、鄙视东方弱小民族的意识;揭示了市场经济体制与现代传媒影响下儿童新的级差意识的产生;以及一些影片中潜隐地表现出的成人重男轻女思想。然而儿童影片永远是浪漫的,它不但揭示问题,而且总是提出解决问题的设想,给儿童正确德引导。文化批评标志着中国儿童电影批评的最高成就。

中国儿童电影批评范式的不断刷新,是改革开放以来国人思想不断进步,中国电影理论与西方电影理论不断碰撞、融合,从而得到迅速发展的缩影,它的根基是近30年中国儿童电影的长足进步。虽然受到种种条件的限制,中国儿童电影的批评声音还显得微弱,但它绝非“不入主流话语”,更非“缺乏适应新阶段和新形式的理论探讨”,而是与时俱进,不断更新。这些为弱者呼号的宝贵的批评声音正是中国儿童电影独特理论体系建立的基础。

Abstract: It is the most active period of Chinese children film criticism in the past 30 years, not only the criticism achievement grows day by day, but also criticism model change one by one. The main model of Chinese children film criticism was “to be true”. This kind of criticism model has accepted Western movie theory’s influence - - France Andrew Bazan’s “on-the-spot report theory” since the reform and open policy in 1980s. Though Chinese movie theorists may not understand it clearly, it contains one kind of actually unprecedented determination to the movie medium. This kind of criticism model launches new children film with " true " and " useful " conduct as" established fact ", focus on expressing the relationship between true world and fictitious art , " true " and " useful "being regarded as “beauty”. At the beginning of the new period, Chinese movie theorists adopted “to be true” film criticism, instead of ideology criticism.

In 1990s, “to be true” film criticism model has been replaced by noumeon criticism form, which is also under the influence of western noumenon criticism. It indicates that the critical circles have begun to regard “Chinese children film” as an independent art form. There are three key words: growth, children temperament and interest; art imagination.” Grow up “is an eternal film theme of Chinese children. The characteristic of noumenon criticism lies in different criticism aspects, different criticism theories, and different criticism methods adopted by criticism theorists. So there are different interpretations of “grow up”, not only in different films, but also in the same film. Explanation in “children temperament and interest " make a key point in film sound picture, film language and other special methods. The key element of children film is “art imagination”. Critics criticize the importance of imagination from each aspect, such as the script, the plot structure, the characterization, the dreamland, the stunt and so on, having held the key question that the children movie creates.

From the end of 1990s till now, the Chinese children movie cultural criticism are on the rise. When criticizing the Chinese children movies in the new time, cultural criticism mainly reveal the cultural connotation which hides in the revelation movies, as well as its cultural influence to children .The key words are race, social class and sex. On the basis of the movie creation reality, critics has pointed out the phenomenon in the Chinese movie that some western Caucasian children have the consciousness of outstanding race, despising the Eastern small and weak nationality, has promulgated new grading consciousness under the influence of market economy system and the modern media, has displayed the thought of regarding men as superior to women in some movies as well. However, the children movie is romantic forever. It not only reveals questions, but also always proposes tentative plans to solve the questions, offering good guides for children. The cultural criticism symbolized the highest achievement in the field of Chinese children movie criticism.

The unceasing model revolution of Chinese children movie criticism is the rapid development miniature after people unceasing thought progresses since reform and open policy has been adopted, the unceasing collision and fusion between Chinese movie theory and Western movie theory. Its foundation is the great strides made in Chinese children movie in the last 30 year. Though it is under all sorts of limited conditions, the criticism of Chinese children movie sound weakly, it does not means that it can not enter the mainstream or lacks new theory discussion adapted in the new stage, while it keeps pace with the times, renews unceasingly. These precious criticism sounds for the weak one are precisely the foundation of unique theory system establishment of Chinese children movie.

文革记忆与现代文艺美学的构建 孙小光 河南理工大学人文政法学院

提要:“文革”文学的出现和繁荣并不是一个偶然的瞬间,而是特定时代与文化背景下的情感裁定。在这个政治与狂欢的氛围中体味文学的生存,在文革的记忆中重新挖掘时代的精神证词和文学理想,关乎着理论的现代性重构和现代文艺美学的构建。“文革”文学本身就是国家美学的一种自发性的探索。国家美学追求的是政治与民众的结合,是文学大众化的努力,寻求着和谐文化的建构。现代文艺美学理论的建构可以更全面地展示现代文学艺术的文体特征和艺术规律,促进文学的发展和繁荣。

本尼特、罗伊尔《文学、批评与理论导论》对我国文学理论研究及教材编写的启示

汪正龙 南京大学中文系

提要:安德鲁·本尼特和尼古拉·罗伊尔的《文学、批评与理论导论》属于西方核心范畴、问题或关键词文学理论教材模式的代表作,其不采用先验理论预设、以文学问题为核心的思维模式和知识建构模式,对文学理论阐释文学作品的功能的重视,以及将其他知识与文化形态纳入文学研究视野的做法,对我国文学理论研究和文学理论教材编写具有重要的启示意义。

Abstracts: The book an Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory by Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle is a representative among the literary theory teaching materials in a keywords-oriented pattern. It avoids any theoretical presupposition, offers a new mode of thinking and knowledge construction with the focus on key concepts and literary problems, and brings other modalities of knowledge and culture into the field of literary studies. This pattern provides significant revelations for the research on and the redaction of teaching materials of literary theory in China.

从现象学到形式主义美学—夏目漱石《文学论》意义新解

张小玲 中国海洋大学外语学院日语系

提要:日本明治初年西方“literature”概念的输入,使得源自汉文化圈的“文”“史”“哲”一体的大文学概念产生巨大变化,这种变化带来的精神断裂让夏目漱石开始追寻超越国别的文学的共通规律,并由此在接受美学兴起半个多世纪以前便自觉选择了读者心理作为《文学论》一书的根本出发点。在书中,漱石提出了(F+f)的文学公式,并对此进行了颇具有现象学文论特征的解释。但他并没有过多停留于胡塞尔式的意识分析上,而是很快将目光集中到文本语言,着重于探讨文学语言的隐喻性和物质性,从而转向了形式主义式的文论研究。所以,在酝酿于十九世纪末并出版于一九零八年的这本《文学论》中,隐含着现象学-接受美学及语言学-形式主义美学这两大二十世纪西方主要文学理论流派的影子,仅此一点,此书就应该得到高度评价和重新认识。夏目漱石作为文学理论家的地位也应该毫无质疑地被加以承认。

Abstract: In the early years of the Meiji period in Japan, the importation of western concept of Literature greatly changed the main literary concept originating from Chinese Cultural Circles, which took Literature, History, and Philosophy as a whole. Such kind of conceptual alteration effected a split in mind. Under this influence, Natumesouseki set about pursuing universal laws of literature. At the same time, he chose readers’ psychology, half a century earlier than the rise of reception aesthetics, as the starting point of Elaboration on Literature . In Elaboration on Literature he put forward the literary formula “F+f” and rendered an explanation characteristic of phenomenological literary theory. But instead of confining himself to conscious analysis of Husserl’s model, Natumesouseki focused on the textual language, laying emphasis on metaphoricality and materiality of literary language. Thus, he applied formalism to literal theory study. The book Elaboration on Literature, brewed at the end of the 19th century and published in 1908, finds the trace of phenomenology-reception aesthetics and linguistics-formalism aesthetics, the two schools which dominated western literary theory in the 20th century. With this respect, it deserves high appreciation and re-interpretation. Natumesouseki should undoubtedly be acknowledged as a great literary theorist.

论新时期颓废主义文学思潮流变及成因 吴家荣 安徽大学中文系

提要:新时期颓废主义文学思潮以批判僵化文艺思想的斗士面目出现,它对新时期文学创作的繁荣、对文学创作从内容到形式的鼎革有过不可忽略的成就,对推动中国文学走向世界也有过重要的贡献,然而,当它跌落到唯美、唯乐、唯我的颓而淫的泥淖之中时,曾经有过的光彩顿时黯然失色,于是,人们有理由期盼新理性主义的精神复归文坛.

Abstract: Decadent literary trend of the new period presented itself as a fighter against rigid literary trend with its contributions to prosperity of literature and transformation from the content and form, and introduction of Chinese literature into the world. These achievements cannot be overlooked. However, when it was degenerated into the decadency of beauty, pleasure and egoism even filth, its previous glory got eclipsed. Nevertheless, we have reasons to expect the return of the neo-rationalism to the literary world.

新世纪·新领域—小学教育本科专业“文学概论”课程建设 钟名诚 南京晓庄学院教育学院

提要:1998年南京师范大学晓庄学院首开招收小学教育本科专业学生,培养本科层次的小学教师,该校小学教育本科专业采用22的培养模式。前两年为大专业,主要开设公共类课程、教育类课程、教师基本技能类课程,后两年分为三个学科方向:中文学科、数学学科、英语学科。后两年的中文学科方向主要开设中文类课程,与大学中文系的课程类似,主要包括:现代汉语、古代汉语、汉字学、中国古代文学、中国现当代文学、外国文学、文学概论、写作、儿童文学等必修课程,此外还开设比较文学研究、通俗文学研究、文学名著选读、影视文学鉴赏等中文类任意选修课程。

此后,许多师范院校均开办了小学教育本科专业,计划模式虽然有一定的差异,中文方向(有的学校称文科方向)均开设了“文学概论”这门课程。因此,新世纪的到来,“文学概论”课程从大学中文专业延伸到了小学教育专业,拓展了“文学概论”的教学领域。

面对“文学概论”课程的新领域,课程内容的改革就成了迫切需要解决的问题,目前大部分学校小学教育专业都使用中文专业的“文学概论”教材,并没有体现出小学教育专业“文学概论”课程的特色。近几年来,一些有识之士已经开始专门为小学教育专业编写“文学概论”教材。如:扬州大学姚文放教授主编的高等学校小学教育专业教材《文学概论》(2000年南京大学出版社出版),东北师范大学王确教授主编的大学本科小学教育专业教材《文学概论》(2003年人民教育出版社)。这两本教材在教学内容的设置上,除保持了中文专业“文学概论”课程的内容外,还“体现了小教本科专业培养目标的针对性”,但“尚处在起步阶段”。

小学教育本科专业的“文学概论”课程建设是新世纪的新课题,需要思考的问题也很多。笔者认为,建设小学教育本科专业的“文学概论”课程,至少需要思考以下几个问题:一是课程的内容体系必须具有“文学概论”的完整性,二是不能照搬中文专业的“文学概论”内容体系,三是要体现小学教育本科专业的特色,四是要体现小学教育专业的培养目标。

Abstract: In 1998, for the first time of its kind, Xiaozhuang College at Nanjing Normal University, enrolled undergraduate students majoring in Elementary Education, who are trained to be primary school teachers. This program adopted the 2+2 education model,, in which, in the first 2 years, designed as an associate program which provided public courses, educational courses and basic teaching skills, while in the second 2 years, divided into three specialties as Chinese, math and English. The Chinese specialty is designed like that in the Universities, which includes obligatory courses such as Modern Chinese, Ancient Chinese, Study of Chinese characters, Ancient Chinese literature, Modern Chinese literature, Foreign literature, A Brief Introduction to Literature, writing, Literature for the Children and so on, meanwhile selective courses such as comparative literature, popular(folk) literature, reading of selected literature classics, and taste of movie and TV literature.

Ever since, other normal colleges, one after another, imitated this model, by providing undergraduate level education program majoring in primary education, with a few differences between one another, while in Chinese specialty(some named it art specialty) they all provide the course:, A Brief Introduction to Literature, thereby, with the coming of the new century, this course had extended its feelers from the Chinese majors into the primary education majors at colleges, which had broadened the teaching arena of literature education.

When faced with this new arena, the reform of the contents of this course is a pressing problem to be solved immediately. At present most of the primary education specialty colleges are using A Brief Introduction to Literature, the textbook designed for Chinese specialty, which can not highlight the specialty attributed to primary education. Only in recent years, some well-aware intellectuals are specially compiling a literature textbook suitable for primary education.For instance, A Brief Introduction to Literature Course for Higher Education, compiled by professor Yao Wenfang et. all of Yangzhou University, Nanjing University Press,2000;A Brief Introduction to Literature Course for Undergraduate level primary education majors, compiled by professor Wang Que of Northeast Normal University, People’s Education Press, 2003. Both of the above books have, in the designing of the contents, while maintaining the contents arranged for Chinese Majors, “presented the pertinence to the aims for primary education undergraduates ”,however, “both are still at its starting stage”.

The establishment of the program—A Brief Introduction to Literature Course for Undergraduate level primary education majors—is a new project in the new century, which needs to take many things into consideration. The writer of this article holds the idea that at least the following must be considered: firstly, its content system must have the completeness of A Brief Introduction to Literature; secondly, it cannot thoroughly copy the content system of A Brief Introduction to Literature Course for Undergraduate level Chinese majors; thirdly , it must presents the special aspects attributed to primary education; fourthly, it must be pertinent to the aims set for primary education.

略论90年代以来的主体物化 张文初 湖南师范大学文学院

提要:一百年以前,特拉克尔痛苦地吟唱:哦,人的形象多么腐败,/冷酷的金属拼凑而成,笼罩着莽林的黑夜和恐怖/动物的焦渴的兽性把人牵连,/灵魂已风一般地归于寂静。

一百年来,特拉克尔所恐怖的物化在全世界强势地推进了。中国上世纪90年代以来的历史正是物化凯歌行进的历史。这一历史到现在为止,可以划分为四个阶段:92年以前:政治层面的恐怖与凄伤带来精神追求的迷惘;9295,功利主体性的猛然勃发对精神主体的痛苦淹没;962003,依靠体制化大众化等手段功利主体欲望主体全面强化使精神主体在麻木与无奈中进一步衰落;从03到现在,在物化以其惯性的力量进一步严重推进的同时某种微弱的反弹性因素出现。

中国物化的表现形式和特征主要有下列几个方面。①远身性追求的败落。一边是堂而皇之的宣布:“一地鸡毛”,“躲避崇高”,“人生无梦到中年”,“哭也好,笑也好,活着就好”。另一边是心有不甘的追问:“我们还能在已变得像一张花里胡哨的招贴画一样的城市风景面前感到那‘灵晕’的笼罩,并想起这是我们父辈生活过、并留下他们的印记和梦想的地方吗?我们还能在自己的日益空洞的时间中感到那想‘停下来唤醒死者,把破碎的一切修补完整’的天使的忧郁,感到那‘狂暴地吹击着他的翅膀’,被人称为‘进步’的风暴吗?”

②话语的功利化欲望化;③肉感淹没美感;④保存性压倒创造性。保存性是肉体生命的基本机制,是人生物性的基本模式。创造性是人作为精神主体的主要特征。保存性压倒创造性是主体物化在生存机制上的主要表现。

90年代以来的中国主体物化是由当代中国社会现实、异域思潮和传统文化交互作用造成的。要指出的是,异域思潮,比如说西方的后现代主义,实际上是反物化的,但在中国却反向地变成了推进物化的力量。物化作为历史进程在高杨人的物质性存在方面有一定的合理性。但物“化”是人的主体性的沦丧,是人生命的碎裂与失败。

试论文学的“自觉”与“不自觉” 刘惠文 河北经贸大学

提要:本文试图从文学活动的理论阐述即文学概念和规律的阐述,实践阐述即文学活动现象亦即文学创作理论锻造、文学创作活动实际现象、文学创作成果文本或其它样式、文学创作活动批评的阐述,审视文学的“自觉”与“不自觉”,推论出在文学的“自觉”与“不自觉”二者之间,没有什么清晰可辨的必然界限。而且,文学活动只可能是、或者就是、或者就总是在这二者之间所进行、所展开。在今天——21世纪之初的社会里,话语以往权威的被摧毁以及话语新权威的重构已难于成为现实,则目前就像一堆“破玻璃渣子”跺在那里一样,因而文学适宜在“自觉”与“不自觉”之间进行,让历史的不断积淀和审美愉悦的时代变化,来重新锻造文学创作的指导理论和重新抉择文学创作的发展方向。

Abstract: This paper attempts to expound from the theory of literary activities, which is the concept and the law governing the exposition. From practice expounded, which is activities described literary phenomenon also is forging theoretical literature, literature activities actual phenomenon, the text of literature results or other styles, The elaboration of literary criticism creative activities presented by the literary review of the "conscious" and " non-conscious" Inferred from the literature of the "conscious" and "non-conscious" between the two facts is no clear and discernible limits of the inevitable, and literary activities can only be or is, or is it always in between the two facts, have started. Today -- 21-century society, Discourse authority of the past were destroyed and the authority of the new discourse reconstruction has been difficult to become a reality. Currently it is like a pile of "bare-breaking" Provided there, Literature thus is suitable for the "conscious" and "non-conscious" between the two facts, Let history of the continuous accumulation and aesthetic pleasure of the changes of the era, Forging language to re-create the guiding theory and the choice of literary re-creation of the direction of development.

30年来的文学理论研究的成绩、新的格局与问题 钱中文 中国社科院文学研究所

文化诗学——从止步处重新起步 童庆炳 北京师范大学

回顾与反思——文艺美学30 曾繁仁 山东大学文艺美学研究中心

文本的文学性与接受的文学性 王先霈 华中师范大学文学院

文学与政治问题反思 陆贵山 中国人民大学

学科范围、体系建构与书写体例——古代文论研究中诸问题的思考

党圣元 中国社科院文学所

新时期三十年中国古代文论的研究实绩及其价值取向 蒋述卓 暨南大学

在后文学理论建设中需要我们思考的三个问题 王元骧 浙江大学

文学经典、世界文学及文学史的重新书写 王宁 清华大学外语系

比较文学变异学学术背景与理论构想 曹顺庆 张雨 四川大学

文艺学的现代性 高楠 辽宁大学

后殖民批评的吊诡 张宽 美国乔治梅森大学现代与古典语文系

西方左翼知识界的危机——管窥当代美国左翼文化理论与批评 刘康 美国杜克大学

开放的民族主义——论中国当代文学批评之立场 胡亚敏 华中师范大学文学院

从文学理论转向理论 周宪 南京大学中文系

重新召唤诗意启蒙——电子媒介主导年代的文学教育 王一川 北京师范大学文学院

新时期美学研究的问题域的转换 张玉能 华中师范大学文学院

文学理论的学理性与寄生性 余虹 中国人民大学文学院

俄罗斯文艺学历史研究和结构研究的结构 程正民 北京师范大学文艺学研究中心

文学性:百年文学理论的现代性追求 姚文放 扬州大学文学院

文学理论研究的知识状况——以文化批评为视角的反思 孙文宪 华中师范大学文学院

跨文化视野中文学研究异质性的三个层次 张荣翼 武汉大学文学院

中西文论异质性比较研究——新批评在中国的命运 代迅 西南大学文学院

文艺理论要面向当代,关注问题——对当下文艺理论研究现状的一些思考

马驰 上海社会科学院思想文化研究中心

新时期文论转型发展之反思 赖大仁 江西师范大学当代形态文艺学研究中心、文学院

审美是一种表达——重申艺术语义学的一种路径 徐岱 浙江大学传媒与国际文化学院

Utopia as Method, Or, the Uses of the Future

作为方法的乌托邦,或未来的用途 弗雷德里克·詹姆逊 杜克大学

Representing Darfur: A Marxist Critique of Ideology

意识形态的马克思主义批评

Anthony O’Brien (Queens College, The City University of New York)

安东尼·奥布赖恩 纽约市立大学昆斯学院

The Politics of Literary Study in the United States: Eight Propositions

美国文学研究中的政治:八个主张

Barbara Foley ( Rutgers University )

芭芭拉·弗雷 美国新泽西州罗特格斯大学

Author”/ “Pirate”: Literary Theory in Global Commerce in Ideas

“原作者”/“侵犯著作权者”:全球观念商业视阈中的文学理论

Martha Woodmansee (Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio)

玛莎·伍德曼西 美国俄亥俄州克里夫兰市 华盛顿天主教大学

T. S. Eliot, Asia and Newly Found Evidence

艾略特, 亚洲和新发现的证据

By Tatsushi Narita (Visiting Fellow, Harvard University;

Professor Emeritus, Nagoya City University)

成田興史 哈佛大学访问学者;日本名古屋市立大学名誉教授

文化研究中的阶级轨迹 陆扬 复旦大学中文系

非文本诗学研究个案分析 高小康 中山大学文学院

禅的思维特征及其表达方式 邱紫华 华中师范大学文学院

审美意识形态辨 郑伟 北京师范大学文学院

文学本质论批判 王进 广州大学人文学院中文系

文学理论发展与学术认同机制 李健 南京大学文化艺术教育中心

时代思想气象与文艺学研究问题 程勇 鲁东大学汉语言文学院

1992年以来文艺理论研究的三个阶段 江守义 安徽师范大学文学院

20世纪80年代文学主体性论争——作为中国当代文论发展史的解读

孟登迎 中国青年政治学院

讽刺性模仿与《阿Q正传》表层叙事结构及其文化意义

——《阿Q正传》叙事文化学分析之一

张开焱 湖北师范学院中文系

本世纪初文学理论建设审视 戴冠青 泉州师范学院中文系

新世纪文学批评研究概评 余三定 湖南理工学院中文系

中国现代文论精神之发掘传承——文学现状与三十年文论建设及其策略的一点思考

金雅 中国社会科学院文学所 杭州师范大学人文学院

主体性·主体间性·后主体性——中国当代文艺学的三元结构 苏宏斌 浙江大学中文系

文化诗学:建构中国当代文学理论的方向 杨红莉 石家庄学院

观看之道——跨学科视野中的文艺学 周计武 南京大学中文系

文化诗学方法中的三个问题 周欣展 南京大学

文学研究范式:从“内结构”到“外结构” 殷曼楟 南京大学哲学系

关于文学批评学学科理论建构的几点思考 顾凤威 广西师范学院

文学理论的反思研究 邢建昌 河北师范大学研究生学院

新时期文艺理论界四“癖”之反思 张冠华 郑州大学文学院

启蒙的多维度与中国现代主义文论的启蒙性 王洪岳 浙江师范大学人文学院

现状、问题与趋势:现代性理论与中国文学研究 张光芒 南京大学中文系

政治元素在当代文学理论中的意涵迁移 孙盛涛 青岛大学师范学院中文系

以道观之——当代文艺学、美学学科建设问题探讨 王建疆 西北师范大学文学院

略论90年代以来的主体物化 张文初 湖南师范大学

经典化批评的现代性历史元叙事及其悖论——以建国后十七年文学批评为中心

李松 武汉大学文学院

作为学科的“中国文论”刍议 牛月明 中国海洋大学文学院

尊体·破体·原体——近30年批评文体研究之实绩 李建中 武汉大学文学院

论墨子的文学观念——兼论孔墨文学观念之异同 王齐洲 华中师范大学

叙事视野下的梁启超文艺思想 赵炎秋 湖南师范大学文学院

古典文论研究与艺术类非物质文化遗产的保护 赖力行 湖南师范大学文学院

古代文论现代化之审思 周兴陆 复旦大学中文系

新时期以来古代文论研究中存在的几个主要问题 黄念然 华中师范大学文学院

古代文论“现代转换”之我见 张帆 沈阳师范大学文学院

王国维“系统圆照”文学研究方法的内涵及其启示 欧阳文风 中南大学文学院

语言分析与批评的中国诗学研究 韩军 华中师范大学文学院

从文史关系看文学的独立性——刘知几之文史关系论 王庆 西华大学人文学院

范畴及其边界 姜金元 中南财经政法大学新闻与文化传播学院中文系

谋求体验与阐释相统一的中国古代文论研究之路 彭维锋 中国劳动关系学院文化传播系

文学研究领域中传播学理论运用初探——以中国古代文学研究为例

柯卓英 西安石油大学人文学院

“五·四”时期胡适的科学思想和文学批评 王济民 华中师范大学文学院

德里达版本的《哈姆莱特》或解构版本的马克思主义——解读德里达《马克思的幽灵们》

郭军 北京语言文化大学

文化研究与文本细读——兼谈“新批评”在当前的借鉴意义

李卫华 河北师范大学文学学院

新时期蒋孔阳的文学批评理论和实践 张玉能 华中师范大学文学院

“术归于学”—近30年来马克思《手稿》的中国文论境遇反思

彭松乔 江汉大学语言文学研究所

本尼特、罗伊尔《文学、批评与理论导论》对我国文学理论研究及教材编写的启示

汪正龙 南京大学中文系

“陌生化”原则与口语化诗歌的“文学性”问题 魏天无 华中师范大学文学院

从作品到文本—兼论俄国形式主义、新批评、结构主义文学文本观的异同

董希文 鲁东大学文学院

找寻一个研究的参照系——日本美学艺术学的研究路径及现状 梁艳萍 湖北大学中文系

西方视域中的意象与幻象—以朗格美学为研究对象 谢冬冰 江苏广播电视大学传媒艺术系

压抑性反升华:齐泽克的创造性再读 徐敏 华中师范大学文学院

“解构”语境中的人道主义 付立峰 云南大学中文系

从现象学到形式主义美学—夏目漱石《文学论》意义新解

张小玲 中国海洋大学外语学院日语系

文学理论与批评具有政治性---特里·伊格尔顿文艺思想学习札记 刘文斌 内蒙古师范大学

都市文化学与中国文学研究 刘士林 上海师范大学人文学院

互联网艺术理论巡礼 黄鸣奋 厦门大学中文系

数字媒介与新世纪文学转型 欧阳友权 中南大学文学院

消费时代戏剧艺术审美特征变异略论 胡立新 黄冈师范学院新闻传播系

论当代日常生活审美的民族化倾向   艾秀梅 南京师范大学

先锋文学与先锋文学的支持网络——关于中国当代先锋文学研究方法论的一点思考

程波 上海大学文学院

身体-肤觉的空间扩展与艺术意境 赵之昂 河南师范大学

新文学图像艺术论 黄薇 中国人民公安大学文学系

走向跨文化研究的文学理论 李庆本 北京语言大学比较文学研究所

试论钟惦棐的电影美学思想 李显杰 华中师范大学文学院

论近30年中国儿童电影批评范式的流变 马力 沈阳师范大学文学院

喜剧性矛盾的结构形态与发展变异 修倜 华中师范大学文学院

戏剧理论研究管窥 刘萍 安徽师范大学文学院

略论中国美学思想中的审丑意识 王庆卫 华中师范大学文学院

现在“是一个不需要经典的时代”吗——对季广茂教授《经典的黄昏与庶民的戏谑》的学术批评

郑惠生 广东汕头教育学院中文系

文艺学的建设性变革及其重构之路 张晶 中国传媒大学文学院

文学批评的修辞论视角在“新时期”的出场及其意义 泓峻 山东大学威海分校中文系

文学意象的生成与命名—探讨文学理论的一个基本概念 孙春旻 广东技术师范学院文学院

小说文本的两种实验读法—以余华的《活着》为例 王学海 浙江省海宁市文联张宗祥书画院

从李健吾文学批评研究看当下文学批评的缺失 周敏 西师范大学文学院

论转义修辞观念的兴起及其理论价值 谭善明 聊城大学文学院

循名责实、纵横交织——新世纪中国美学研究的拓展 祁志祥 上海财经大学中文系

神话与文学批评 胡继华 北京第二外国语学院比较文学与跨文化所

启夕秀于未振——中国古代少数民族文论研究述评及其构建 贾一心 青海民族学院文学院

文本基础主义论 王汶成 山东大学文艺美学研究中心

比较视野中的文学理论教材编写 曾军 上海大学中文系

女性文学主体性论纲 李玲 北京语言大学人文学院

差异与反思:叶维廉的传释学理论 张晓梅 中国社会科学院文学研究所

现代寓言呼唤“阐释理论”——新时期以降汉语叙事形式转型的理论诉求

冯尚 汕头大学中文系

文革记忆与现代文艺美学的构建 孙小光 河南理工大学人文政法学院

论新时期颓废主义文学思潮流变及成因 吴家荣 安徽大学中文系

生态美学如何可能? 杨平 北京第二外国语学院跨文化研究所

新世纪·新领域—小学教育本科专业“文学概论”课程建设 钟名诚 南京晓庄学院教育学院

结构与世界 王先晋 武汉大学外语学院

试论文学的“自觉”与“不自觉” 刘惠文 河北经贸大学

■会议议题

文学理论与政治

文学理论与文学观念的变革

文学研究方法论

外国文论研究实绩

外国哲学、文论思潮与中国文学理论

古代文论现代转换的实绩

文化研究和文学理论

文学经典与文学理论教学

未来文学理论新的走向与新的形式

三十年文学理论实绩与问题

论文提要

30年来的文学理论研究的成绩、新的格局与问题 钱中文 中国社科院文学研究所

提要:近30年来,中国文学理论发生了急剧的变化。应该说,这一时期的当代中国文艺理论的研究是取得了重大的成就的,初步形成了一种具有中国特色的当代中国文学理论形态。有中国特色的当代文学理论形态,不是一种单一的形态,固定的形态,那天突然完成的形态,而是一种在中外古今背景基础之上,立足本土、内容复合、不断积累、自我充实、深入变化的动态的形态。

在改革、开放的思想指导下,人们的审美意识发生了激变;文学理论自身对于审美现代性的不断的追求与反思,主体性理论的张扬,使其较快地摆脱了附属于政治、政策的地位,获得了其自身应有的自主性。同时由于广泛地引入外国的多种文学理论思想,古代文学理论遗产的深入清理,对于现代文论传统认识的加深,使得当代文学理论获得了参照与借鉴,原来单一的文学观念受到了冲击。于是在一段至今令我们兴奋不已的百家争鸣的时间里,出现了众多文学思想、观念竞相争妍的局面。

70年代末,外国文学理论转向文化研究,80年代中期,文化研究这一思潮开始传入我国,在90年代我国市场经济全面确立、全球化思潮不断扩大的情况下,文化研究这一思潮促进了我国文学理论的文化转向,这一时期文学理论与文化研究的相互关系大致是共生共荣的关系。新世纪开始,当市场经济与全球化思潮不断激荡,外国文化、文论思潮进一步被介绍过来,日常生活审美化问题的日益显现,图像艺术、互联网艺术的兴起,文学消亡论的流播,促成了我国文学理论界的思想的变化,随后在文学理论中引发了论争,提出许多极有价值的问题,值得我们今后进一步的深入与探讨。

30年来,我国文学基础理论的研究表现了深入与多样,是取得了新的成就的,与基础理论关系向来密切的中国古典诗学、诗学范畴、现代诗学、文艺美学、审美文化研究和中国审美文化史与风尚史、中国古典文艺学、古代文学理论体系建构与文学理论批评史、周易美学思想研究、儒道佛以及禅与中国艺术精神的研究、中国文化与艺术心理、现代文学理论传统等方面的研究,以及古代文论的现代转化,都取得了长足的进步,而且其中一部分著作,是具有原创精神的。那些受到西方文化研究和文论启迪或影响而出现的文化诗学、文学人类学、比较文学理论、阐释学、叙事学、文学社会学、文学心理学、摄影文学理论、图像艺术批评、生态批评、网络文学理论、外国文论研究、文化研究与文学的跨文化研究等领域,论著丰富,其中不乏高水平的著作,思想新颖,充满生机。形成了文学理论研究的新格局。在总体上说,古代文论研究富有独创精神,而当代文学理论锐意创新,内涵丰富,自有特色。我国20世纪文学理论两头繁荣的景象,现已成为一种共识,后20多年的中国文学理论在独创性上可能逊色于前20年的文学理论,但在探讨问题的广度与深度上、学术视野的宽阔与论题涉及的广泛性方面,后20年却是胜于前20年的。当然,我们还要看到,即使在30-70年代这一阶段里,文学理论中的理论性问题,是十分丰富的,也是需要进一步研究的。

当前文学理论自然存在着许多问题。如前所说,随着市场经济体制的确立,全球化的强大影响,信息技术的日益发达,图像艺术的蓬勃兴起,日常生活的审美色彩愈益浓烈,再次使得人们的审美意识发生激变。这导致文学存在的形式发生了重大变化,文学的版图日益缩小,经典不断遭到解构,引发了种种思潮。面临这种情况,我们对于许多新的问题还不很清楚,因此必须调整思路,要努力了解文学创作中的层出不穷的新现象、研究它们提出的新问题。要加强对它们的评论,当前理论与创作、批评关系是存在着脱节、不协调现象的,我们原有的知识已不很适应,知识的更新与实现理论的创新是个大问题。西方文化、文学理论有不少理论经验,可供借鉴,近一个时期的多种外国文学理论教程,也已翻译出版,但是我们需要进行鉴别,不能照搬。我们需要立足于当今文学创作的新现象、历史发展过程中所形成的大量文学经验,以开放的、包容的心态,宏放的气度,吸纳各种新的营养,提出新问题,阐释新问题,进行理论创新。我们恐怕不能把那些虽非空穴来风但经不起文学实践与经验推敲的东西,当作我们研究问题的新思维、新思路、新起点。

文化诗学——从止步处重新起步 童庆炳 北京师范大学

提要:这三十年文艺学界发生的事情,发表的文章和著作,提出的各种各样的观点,掀起的波浪,可谓纷繁复杂、百态纷呈,不是一时说得清楚的。但用删繁就简的方法,不论其间发生的各种枝节,仅就其大的脉络,三十年的文论“由外而内”走到“由内而外”。目前的我们的似乎走到了“外部”,最具表征的就是杂语喧哗的“文化研究”。我们是否应该从这里起步,走向具有“内外结合”的“文化诗学”的道路上去呢?我们当前最要紧的事情是形成一种能实现新的综合的研究视野或方法论。这新的视野和方法论应该基于文艺学研究学术的承继,又基于对旧有成果的超越。我感到,“内部”穿越“外部”,“外部”穿越“内部”势在必行。在文学文体与历史文化之间实现互动与互构,在艺术结构与历史文化之间实现互动与互构,在抒情话语方式与历史文化之间实现互动互构,在抒情修辞与历史文化之间实现互动互构,在故事形态与历史文化之间实现互动与互构,在艺术叙事与历史文化之间实现互动与互构……,应该成为研究的课题,方法也要相应革新,这样我们就可能实现文艺学的又可能实现又一次“位移”。80年代初中期“由内而外”,我们把研究对象“位移”到文学自身的规律上面,90年代以来的“由内而外”我们把研究对象由语言“位移”到社会文化上面,那么这一次的综合应该把研究对象“位移”到艺术文本与历史文化互动与互构上面,这就是我和一些学人这些年以来一直呼唤和提倡的“双向拓展”,一直提倡的“文化诗学”了。“文化诗学”仍然是“诗学”,一方面,审美仍然是中心,语言分析不能放弃,但它不把文学封闭于审美、语言之内;另一方面,也不是又让外部政治来钳制文学,文学的某种“自治”的程度必须保持,“写什么和怎样写,只能由文艺家在艺术实践中去探索和逐步求得解决。”我们的主张是,让艺术文学与社会文化在新的基础上实现互动与互构。学术要多样,学术研究者要对话,各种不同的研究要延续,但也要着重考虑超越。因此,我觉得具有包容性的、对话性的、关注文学的整体的“文化诗学”是一个新的起点。

回顾与反思—文艺美学30 曾繁仁 山东大学文艺美学研究中心

提要:文艺美学是新时期以来由中国学者提出的、具有中国特色的新兴学科,是中国学者对世界学术发展的一个贡献。它是20世纪80年代初,在党的十一届三中全会及其“解放思想,实事求是”思想路线指引下产生的。其发展历程的第一阶段是20世纪80年代,为文艺美学的提出与初创时期;第二阶段是20世纪90年代,为文艺美学的发展建设时期;第三阶段为新世纪,为文艺美学进一步深入发展和进入国家体制内建设时期。文艺美学的学术内涵在学科界定上是20世纪80年代以来产生的一个新兴学科;在研究对象上是艺术的审美经验;在研究资源上包括中西马以及现代的理论资源、作品中表现出来的审美意识、各个艺术门类的成果以及当代大众文化资源等;其研究方法是马克思主义指导下经过改造了的审美经验现象学方法。其理论贡献是进一步推动了理论战线的“拨乱反正”;进一步推动了我国美学与文艺学的现代理论转型;进一步推动了我国美学与文艺学与世界学术接轨的步伐;为我国传统美学在现代发挥作用提供了一个平台。文艺美学在当代遇到诸多挑战,在现实生活中是大众文化的勃兴使艺术与非艺术以及美与非美界限模糊,民族文化的振兴要求文艺美学更快地走向世界,理论上则是艺术终结与文化研究理论的发展等都对文艺美学的存在及其内涵提出责疑。而其应对则是立足于理论、学科与队伍等方面的建设。

文本的文学性与接受的文学性 王先霈 华中师范大学文学院

提要:文学理论批评的基本概念,是在历史的社会的语境中“建构”起来的。参与建构的不仅有理论家,不仅有作家,还有读者。最广大的读者群,是建构文学观念不容忽视的巨大的潜在力量。文学的定义,不但会随着历史发展的时间线索而迁变,而且会随着民族、国度、地域、人群的文化单位的不同而呈现差异。文学观念必然要随着社会的发展而不断调整,但不应该造成断裂,需要寻求“文学”概念稳定性与变动性的统一。学科基本概念的建构是群体的社会性行为的结果,是历时的和共时的多种因素合力的产物。近年来,媒体传播技术的飞速进步,文学产品与文化商业的日形紧密的联结,社会大众对文学概念建构的影响力增强。我们需要把接受的文学性、审美性作为一个重点来关注。

Abstract: The basic concept of literary theory criticism is constructed by historical and social contexts. The participators of this construction are the theorists, authors, and also readers. The most extensive readership is the enormous latent force in the construction of literary concept that cannot be ignored. The definition of literature is changing with time clue of historical development, as well as the cultural unit differences in nation, country, territory and people. The literary concept should be continuously adjusted to the development of society, but should not cause break-up; it needs to find out the balance of both the stability and mobility. The construction of basic concepts of a subject is the result of the community’s social behavior. At the same time, it is the production of several diachronic and synchronic factors. In recent years, the influence of social mass enhances upon the construction of literary conception, because of the rapid development of media communication techniques, the increasing association of literary products and cultural industry. Thus, we need to pay more attention to the literary and aesthetic characteristics of acceptation.

文学与政治问题反思 陆贵山 中国人民大学

提要:新时期以来,批判极左思潮和专制政治,对推动历史变革、社会转型、加速现实生活的民主化进程,对政治文化、政治文明建设和文艺理论学科建设,都具有不可磨灭的历史性意义。但文艺与政治的关系问题,并没有终结。所改变的只是这个问题存在方式和提问方式。文艺与政治的关系问题,永远是一个真问题和新问题,总是以新的内容、结构、性质、功能和新的价值取向,继续和仍然“在场”。

在处理文艺与政治的关系问题上,注意:①确认政治的性质;②摆正政治的位置;③熟练地掌握具体问题具体分析的原则。我们的文艺是为人民服务,为社会主义服务的。文艺为人民服务,不仅要为人民的经济服务,而且包括为人民的政治服务,为社会主义服务,不仅要为人民的经济服务,而且包括为社会主义的政治服务。

政治具有不同形态。一是政治的思想形态和观念形态;一是政治的制度形态和体制形态;一是政治的生活形态和实践形态。政治生活是关系到全党全民的前途和命运的重大问题。

政治同样是一个历史的概念,是不断发展着和流变着的动态的活性结构。如果说,战争时期,文学艺术主要表现为阶级斗争的政治服务,是具有历史的合理性的;那么和平发展时期,文学艺术主要表现为稳定的、和谐的政治服务,同样是具有历史的合理性的。战争、斗争与和平、团结、稳定、和谐,都是政治的不同的表现形态,都会对文学产生不可忽视的重要影响。

对政治和文学的关系应当进行具体分析。一味地笼统地鄙视和厌恶政治的情绪是不正常和不建康的。政治上的软骨病和恐惧症是要不得的。人民的、民主的、开明的、清廉的、公正的、稳定的、和谐的,为大多数人的自由、幸福和解放服务的政治是美好的、温暖的和亲善的。好的政治与好的文学总是携手合作、双向互动的,使社会、人生和文学朝着真善美的方向发展;好的政治对坏的文学的监管、疏导和批判是正常的。只有这样,才能净化和提升社会风气,培养和提高人的思想文化素质和伦理道德情操;好的文学对坏的政治或好的政治的某些坏的方面进行揭露的抨击是应当的,对腐败的、专横的、黑暗的、龌龊的、丑恶的、非人的社会流弊和政治病毒进行正义的诉讼和诗意的裁判,是作家艺术家的天职。只有这样,才能使政治更加完善和充满爱意,以期增强整个民族的亲和力、向心力、凝聚力、感召力和战斗力;而坏的政治与坏的文学却往往是同流合污的。作家们要秉持文化操守和政治良知,推动政治与文学生态的良性发展。

我们运用马克思主义的对立统一的规律来考察政治问题。矛盾、斗争和冲突是政治;稳定、和谐和统一也是政治。这是政治内涵中不可分割的两个方面、由于一定时代的社会条件和历史任务的不同,这两个方面表现出有所侧重、有所倾斜、有所差异的存在形态。和平时期和战争年代的政治是不同的,是不能相互取代和相互延续的。改革开放以来,伴随着历史的变革、社会的转型,政治的性质、内涵、作用和功能都发生了相应的巨变。

研究文艺的政治维度和政治功能,可以有利于改善和优化当代中国的政治文化、政治文明、政治体制,政治生活,有利于改善和优化文艺的意识形态性,有利于弘扬文艺的批判精神,从而有利于增强和提高中国学术的刚性和血性、勇气和锐气,同时有利于积极回应、追寻和跟进世界范围内“文化转向”后注重和强调文学的政治属性和意识形态属性的文化潮流和学术势向。

学科范围、体系建构与书写体例——古代文论研究中诸问题的思考

党圣元 中国社科院文学所

提要:西学模式的引进导致了古代文论学科中的批评史与文学史、批评史与批评观念、批评史与文化语境的割裂。在当下,回到中国文化、中国问题原点以及成为古代文论研究学科反思中的一个关键性问题,研究目的和文学观念的改变必然影响到古代文论学科的研究范围和研究方法,在此基础上,古代文论研究中的回应西学问题、学科内在的演化问题、体系构造问题以及书写体例问题都应该重新思考。

新时期三十年中国古代文论的研究实绩及其价值取向 蒋述卓 暨南大学

提要:自1978 年以来,中国古代文论研究获得了长足的进步,取得了丰硕的成果。①思想获得大解放,研究领域得以拓展:②不断吸收新的研究方法,研究视野不断扩大:③批评史写作有了巨大发展,古代文论体系研究初见成效。④中国古代文论现代转换问题的讨论引起极大关注,古代文论的现代价值越来越受人重视。

综观三十年古代文论研究的发展道路,我们可以看到,古文论研究的总体路向是指向未来的,其价值取向是要激活中国古代文论,而不仅仅是将其作为文学遗产去研究。更重要的是要使古代文论参与中国当代文论的建构。这与当前重视中华传统文化的现代转型、重视国学等潮流是一致的。因此,在21世纪,古代文论研究虽不会形成热潮,但它的重要价值将会日益突出,尤其在当代文艺学要实现综合与超越的目标时,从现代文艺学的视野中去发现古代文论的现代价值将是一重要路径。

在后文学理论建设中需要我们思考的三个问题 王元骧 浙江大学

新时期以来我国文学理论取得很大成绩,但也有些问题值得进一步思考,我认为主要有:

一、文学理论的性质问题,长期以来由于受实用主义的影响,认为文学理论只是说明文学现象,而忽视它同时又是反思的、批判的。反思需要有一个理论前提,这就是文艺观念。因此对于文学理论来说,文学观念应该是理论的核心问题。一部文学理论著作就是一定文学观念的系统展示,它只是为文学鉴赏和文学批评确立视界,而不是衡量文学作品的框框条条。

二、文学观念的问题,新时期提出的有很多,主要是从认识论、价值论、本体论,当然还有符号论的角度来阐释的。但各自分离,没有形成一个整体。我认为认识论研究应是基础,但文艺的认识不同于科学的认识,它反映的不是“是什么”而是“应如何”。“应如何”是一个理论的尺度,在当今价值多元和价值迷失的时代,要正确判断怎样的选择才是合理的,就需要进入到对文学本体论的研究,惟此才能真实地说明文学的本真存在,摆脱主观随意性,而建立我们看待文学的客观真理性的标准,克服以往仅从单维视角研究所不能达到的认识的科学性和完整性。

三、因此,在方法上,我们也应该走向综合,除了客观的上述三论的综合之外,从微的方向,还可以静态的把作品分为普遍的(意识形态)、特殊的(审美的反映)和个别的(语言的媒介)三个层次,动态的把文学活动分为创作—作品—阅读这样现实作家创作目的的三个环节来理解。惟此才能达到对文学问题作出全面的把握。

文学经典、世界文学及文学史的重新书写 王宁 清华大学外语系

提要:本文通过对国际学术界关于文学经典问题讨论的回顾分别从新历史主义、后殖民主义、文化研究以及修正主义等理论视角阐述了西方文学史上经典的构成以及隐于其背后的权力关系。全文共分为三个部分。在第一部分中,作者认为,经典的形成是由诸多因素构成的,它在很大程度上受制于特定的批评话语、权力机构及其他一些人为的因素。由于“欧洲中心主义”和其后的“西方中心主义”意识的作祟,包括中国文学在内的许多东方文学的优秀作品长期以来被排斥在“西方中心主义”框架内的世界文学经典之外,因而从跨文化的视野对既定的经典进行质疑乃至重构是完全可能的,这也是比较文学、文化研究和文学理论研究者在今后相当长的时期内一个主要的研究课题。第二部分着重讨论了世界文学这一概念的产生以及演变的历程。作者认为,全球化时代的文学研究从一个新的视角使得重绘制世界文学地图并重构世界文学经典具有了可行性。此外,作者还试图在文化研究的去经典化的尝试中发现其隐匿着的经典重构之意义。第三部分则提出一种在世界文学背景下以语言为疆界重写汉语文学史的策略。作者认为,这是使得当今的中国文学研究者走出国门进入到国际性的理论争鸣中的一条可能的途径。这种重写汉语文学史的尝试将分别通过两类学者的通力合作而完成:西方汉学家用英文撰写的汉语文学史和中国本土学者用中文撰写的汉语文学史。前者是使得以中国文学为主体的汉语文学在一个更广大的全球化语境下为更多的人所知的必经之路,而后者则试图在一个全球性的跨文化语境下推进汉语在全世界的普及,最终使得汉语成为仅次于英语的世界第二大语言,而汉语文学的重要地位也就不言而喻了。

Abstract: The present paper, through a retrospective survey of the international debate on canon formation, illustrates, from the perspectives of New Historicism, postcolonialism, cultural studies and revisionism, the formation of Western canon behind which various power relations function. The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, the author holds that canon formation is decided by many factors, among which are to a large extent the given critical discourse, power institution and other artificial factors. Due to the lasting influence of Eurocentrism and West-centrism, a lot of excellent works of Oriental literature, including those of Chinese literature, were long excluded from world literary canon. But actually it is quite possible to question the established canon so as to re-canonize it in a broad cross-cultural context. This is one of the major theoretic topics for comparatists, cultural studies scholars as well as literary theorists in their present and future research. The second part particularly emphasizes the formation of the concept world literature and its evolution and development. The author thinks it possible and necessary to remap, from a new perspective, world literature in the current age of globalization. In this aspect, cultural studies could contribute a great deal to the canonization in the process of de-canonization. The third part puts forward a strategy of rewriting a new literary history in the broad context of world literature. To the author, this is a necessary step through which contemporary Chinese literature could get out of our country moving toward the world. This sort of rewriting a new literary history in Chinese could be realized by the joint efforts of two groups of scholars: that written by Western sinologists in English and that written by domestic scholars in Chinese. The former is aimed to make Chinese literature have more audience in the world, and the latter is aimed to promote Chinese in a global and cross-cultural context, in an attempt to enable Chinese to become the second biggest language only next to English. In this way, the significance of the literature in Chinese will be all the more conspicuous.

比较文学变异学学术背景与理论构想 曹顺庆 张雨 四川大学

提要:比较文学变异学的提出是中国比较文学学科理论在基本观念层面上一个革命性的变革,本文主要从三个方面对此展开论述。首先,说明变异学理论的提出是基于解决译介学与形象学归属不当,整合比较文学学科理论的考虑。其次,论文从对当今世界两大学术前沿问题,即解构思潮与跨文明研究的考察入手,总结出当前学术研究的核心问题是差异性问题,并认为比较文学文学变异学是世界学术前沿思潮催发出的新的比较文学学科理论生长点。最后,本文把异质性作为比较文学学科的在同一性之外的另一可比性基础提出来,认为比较文学变异学的研究对象是文学流传过程中的变异现象与跨文明的文学研究中的异质性因素,借助变异学理论比较文学研究可以在求同与辨异的基础之上,达到对文学交流中所有因素的全面考虑。

Abstract: The proposal of The Theory of Variation of Comparative Literature is a revolutionary change in the basic notion of comparative literature study in China. The present paper has tried to expound from the following three points: firstly, we tried to solve the misclassification of medio-translatology and imagology by integrating the disciplinary theories of comparative literature; secondly, we tried to sum up the core issue of academic research, differentiation, by reviewing deconstructionism and cross-civilization study; finally, the present paper took heterogeneity as another comparability out of analogue and put forward that variation theory is to concentrate on heterogeneity elements in literary circulation and study the variation phenomenon. In this way we may get a holistic consideration of all the elements in literary exchange on the basis of similarity and differentiation.

文艺学的现代性 高楠 辽宁大学

提要:当下,文艺学关注与研究的问题前所未有地广泛而且错杂。学科既有格局被严重搅乱,一些文艺学研究者对这个学科是否还有自己的理论边界或格局产生质疑。而同时,各类问题的研究又很难聚焦并坚持,提出问题的敏度与求解问题的深度形成强烈反差。这种情况与文艺学正经历巨大的历史性变化分不开,这变化的历史性便是亟待深入探索的文艺学的现代性。

一、现代性问题在后现代话语中突出为话题,后现代话语相对于现代性问题被设定,两者关系在精神活动层面形成,并在同一层面的相互作用中各自分明。现代性是历史实存,后现代是关于实存的话语。现代性问题在后现代话语中反思并继续历史性地展开。这是探索文艺学现代性问题,取之于西方的现代——后现代话语背景。

二、中国现代性不同于西方,这里有文化传统与文化发展基因的差异。尽管中国现代性的展开与西方的殖民侵略相关,但这仍是中国现代性,西方的作用只是他者推助。学术界包括文艺学界的一些学者受后殖民理论影响提出的“中华性/现代性”二元对立模式,是没有认识到中国现代性的自体性实质,由此得出的中国现代性即西方殖民性的实质性结论没有道理。

三、与文艺学发展密切相关的中国现代性在各重要方面均体现出不容取代的独特性。中国现代性不是启蒙于西方式的科技发展而是启蒙于社会人伦关系的道德理性,前者是始于真的启蒙及认识真的人的启蒙,后者是始于善的启蒙及变革人伦关系的启蒙。再则,西方现代性启蒙要点是人的创造性的开启与激发,中国现代性则是世界意识与民族生存意识的开启与激发。市场经济繁荣在西方不是现代性标志,在中国则是现代性的突出标志。碎片化,是西方现代性的一个伴生性特征,在中国,则是碎片化的整体性持存,是整体性的碎片活跃。西人的个性中心化,构成西方社会学的历史难题,这个难题在中国被人伦传统所节制,个性因被肯定而活跃,又因被传统地置于人伦关系而约束。在时下中国现代性中,完善着个性活跃的人伦整体性。

四、构成文艺学建构的现代性根据主要有四个方面:1、民族主体性。它来于文艺学面向世界建构的民族意识,它体现为全球视点、自体的开放性建构意识。2、理论的个性言说。文艺学理论言说者的个性不是说者所说道理的他者,个性是说理的根据、构成与形态。文艺学个性之说或文艺学理论个性色彩的被接纳,是现代性构入的结果。文艺学在个性理论言说中多元地趋向真理,并使理论在现实中敞开。3、边缘化组合。文艺学建构的边缘与中心之说是空间性的更是时间性的,它是时间中的序位滑动。中心地位被取代与中心地位作为位置的自身消失,构成边缘化的时间性理解。边缘性与中国现代性的整体性碎片活跃相关。4、西学的非语境转用。任何话语都是语境性的,理论话语也不例外,语境不祥或错置导致话语语义的混乱。文艺学建构中,大量引入的西方理论资源,在引入中淡化或失去其实对性语境。这种情况导致文艺学建构的资源性混乱。

后殖民批评的吊诡 张宽 美国乔治梅森大学现代与古典语文系

提要:上世纪九十年代中期作者在读书杂志上引介后殖民批评的文字曾引起过国内学界的论争。本论文回顾相关后殖民批评文字写作的缘起,概述并点评由此而起的各方争论的要点,并回应中国的后殖民批评十多年来所受到的质疑。无论在西方还是在中国,后殖民批评都处于一种两难的境地,其立足点难免尴尬,其论述充斥吊诡。本论文侧重探讨中西方后殖民批评吊诡性产生的背景及其原由。

The author of this essay was one of the major persons who introduced Edward Said’s postcolonial criticism to the Chinese readership through the influential Dushu magazine in the Mid-Nineties of the last century. This essay evokes the circumstances under which those relevant articles were written, summarizes the points involved parties made during the ensuing debate and responds to the challenges the Chinese postcolonial criticism practitioners received. In both the western and Chinese academia, a certain kind of paradoxical nature was imbedded within the discourses of the postcolonial criticism and thus unavoidably put its practitioners in an undesirable predicament.

西方左翼知识界的危机——管窥当代美国左翼文化理论与批评 刘康 美国杜克大学

提要:美国左翼文化理论与批评在上世纪80-90年代经历了一个高峰。杰姆逊的马克思主义文艺理论、萨依德的东方主义批判以及后现代主义、后殖民主义、女性主义理论与批评在美国人文学术界掀起了左翼知识界反思西方现代性、批判当代资本主义文化的浪潮。这股左翼思潮来源于60-70年代西欧(特别是法国)的激进左翼社会与思想运动,在美国80年代的学术界产生广泛影响,并在全世界广为传播,中国也感受到了强烈的冲击。在今天的中国知识界尤其是文艺理论界,西方后学和新马克思主义理论的影响深远。西方左翼文化理论对西方现代性的文化维度做了深刻的剖析与批判,推动了西方知识界对现代性的反思以及对当代西方资本主义文化现象的认识。然而左翼文化理论与批评在批判资本主义文化商品化的同时仍然无法避免学术理论自身被商品化的怪圈,并且日益走上精英主义的道路,跟当代社会实践与大众越来越脱节。在右翼文化政治越来越支配西方社会的氛围中,西方左翼知识界的否定性立场也日益失去具体实际的对象而趋向空洞化,缺乏社会变革的参与感,没有任何建设性方案,从而使左翼文化批评越来越边缘化,陷入深刻的危机之中。本文就美国学院派左翼近年来的一些动向作简略分析,以管窥西方左翼知识界的历史性危机,并提出这一危机对中国学术界的可能影响与启示。

开放的民族主义——论中国当代文学批评之立场 胡亚敏 华中师范大学文学院

提要:中国当代文学批评的建立,是以对西方20世纪文学批评理论和方法的引进为基础的。如何看待西方文学批评在中国的传播,人们有不同的看法。本文在探讨中国当代文学批评与西方的关系中明确提出“开放的民族主义”的立场。论文首先重新诠释了“民族”的概念,全球化语境下的民族具有相关性,民族性中蕴涵着普遍性,民族的发展在于否定和更新。接下来阐述了开放的民族主义的基本要义,即坚持民族差异性和有容乃大的原则。中国当代文学批评在接受西方文学批评时,一方面需要充分了解和把握其对象作为异质文化语境和经验的产物的复杂性,同时也要看到西方文学批评对于中国当代文学批评的革命性影响。当代文学批评的策略乃中和之美,以宽容的精神、多元的价值观、对话的姿态倾听别的民族关于文学批评的声音。中国未来的文学批评应是一种善于吸收不同文化优势,能够研究和解释本土文学问题,体现本民族深层意识和具有民族个性的文学批评。

Abstract: The establishment of modern Chinese literary criticism is based on the introduction of 20th century western literary criticism theories and methods, whereas people hold different views as to how to regard the spread of western literary criticism in China . The paper proposes the stand of “open nationalism” when discussing about the relations between modern Chinese literary criticism and western literary criticism. It starts with redefining the concept of “nation”, and argues that it is characterized by relativity under the context of globalization. Nationality is closely related to universality, and the development of the nation lies in negation and regeneration. Then it elaborates on the basic meaning of open nationalism, that is, acknowledging national differences and sticking to the principle of tolerance. While introducing western literary criticism into Chinese context, we should fully understand its complexity as the product of heterogeneous cultural context and experience, and be aware of its revolutionary influence upon Chinese literary criticism. Modern Chinese literary criticism adopts neutralization and harmony as its strategy, which advocates listening to different voices of others with tolerant mind, multiple value standards and conversational stance. Chinese literary criticism in the future should learn from the advantages of different cultures and apply them to the study and examination of national literary issues, highlighting its national awareness and national characters.

从文学理论转向理论 周宪 南京大学中文系

提要:从文艺学到文学理论,称谓的变化使得这一学科逐渐边界明晰,也反映出这一学科越来越体制化的进程。今天,在大学中文系里它的二级学科位置,重点学科、博士点和硕士点的建立,本科课程的开设,教材和读本的出版,教研室或专业教师共同体,以及专业学会、专业杂志和专业评估、精品课程等一系列体制化的活动,必然使文学理论趋向于专业共同体内部的书斋切磋型或课堂传授型的知识。30年的发展,我们已经清楚地看到了文学理论转向体制化的历史进程。其后果是复杂的。从积极的层面上说,文学理论摆脱了曾经的“政治婢女”的尴尬境地,成为一门相对独立的知识系统。从消极层面上说,文学理论的归位也在一定程度上隐藏着脱离是广阔的社会实践的可能性,进而转向一种少数人小叙事专业性话语,失去了它本身所具有的社会参与性和道德关怀。

今天,体制化围绕着文化资本或象征资本的资源争夺或再分配展开。不同的学校、不同的研究取向和不同代际的学者们,在文学理论场内为争夺资源展开了殊死搏斗。而文学理论越发体制化的进程,同时也是作为一门“学科”越发具有“规训”特性的过程。知识在一个商业化和体制化的社会中,既呈现为某种时尚(诸如种种新潮理论和理论明星的生产),也可以转化为某种形式的商品(出版物或演讲等),还可以是某种标准化的知识生产(多年来文学理论教材内容重新排列组合就是一例)。反叛和越轨的冲动往往在体制化的桎梏编的越来越困难。于是,从文学理论向理论的转变就成为必然。

文学理论的反向冲动导致了转向理论。理论与文学理论有所不同,按照杰姆逊说法,一代人以前强调的是各自不同的技术性话语,比如哲学不同于社会学;而今天却出现了一种单一的话语,它涵盖了各门学科。这就叫作理论。或许我们可以用比较通俗的语言来描述理论的特性,它就是那种跨学科的、多学科的或超学科的话语形态。卡勒具体描述了这一转变:“1960年以来所发生的事实:从事文学研究的人已经开始研究文学研究领域之外的著作,因为那些著作在语言、思想、历史或文化各个方面所做的分析都为文本和文化问题提供了更新、更有说服力的解释。这种意义上的理论已经不是一套为文学研究而设的方法,而是一系列没有边界的、评说天下万物的各种著作,从哲学殿堂学术性最强的问题到人们以不断变化的方法评说和思考身体问题,无所不包。”

三十年中国当代文学理论的发展历程,我们也可以看到一个从文学理论转向理论的清晰轨迹。晚近关于文化研究和文学研究的论争,不妨视作文学理论与理论之间紧张关系的某种表征。或许我们可以形象地描述文学理论与理论之间动力学特征:文学理论是某种向心运动的范式,而理论则是某种离心运动的范式。

从文学理论到理论,在我看来还有一个学科越界的观念变迁。文学理论是传统上所说的“人文学科”(humanities)的一个部分,而理论则可以看作是“人的学科”(human sciences)的一个组成部分。两者之间有着不同的内涵差异,这也清楚地标示出文学理论与理论的不同个性。顺便说一句,国内一些人把human sciences翻译成“人文学科”显然欠妥了。这个概念从狄尔泰到福柯,有其区别于传统“人文学科”的意义。这也是我们从文学理论到理论的一个需要关注的地方。

重新召唤诗意启蒙——电子媒介主导年代的文学教育 王一川 北京师范大学文学院

提要:本文尝试考察电子媒介主导年代的文学教育问题。认为文学教育向来借助语言艺术对个体的熏陶去传承与语言文字紧密结合的人生价值与审美趣味,其主要特点在于以纸质媒介为核心媒介,采取口授与个体自主阅读结合的形式进行。随着以互联网和移动网络为核心的电子媒介的日益发达和普及,文学教育方式已经和正在发生深刻的转型。电子媒介主导时代文学教育的总体趋向在于娱乐化,即以电子媒介主导的大众娱乐已经取代以往的以纸质媒介主导的诗意启蒙。第一,从核心媒介看,不再是过去的纸质媒介主导而是电媒主导,即以电子媒介为文学教育的主导型媒介,以及从电子媒介返销纸质媒介。第二,从主导目标看,不再是朝向过去的诗意启蒙高标而是转向大众娱乐低标,即从提高为主转向普及为主,注重以诗意的和审美的途径去迎合与满足大众的打发其剩余或休闲时光的需要。第三,从具体教学方式看,不再是以启发式为主而是以通俗化和有趣为主。“五四”以来形成的现代性诗意启蒙精神难免遭遇解构的危机。

我仍坚持十年前提出的“从诗意启蒙到异趣沟通”的转型判断,但从来没有像今天这样清醒地认识到,当前的异趣沟通使命已经和正在变得前所未有地艰难,异趣沟通正被变形为机趣共娱,即扭曲成多种机巧、低俗或偶然的感官趣味的共同娱乐,这使得原来有关多种异质审美趣味之间平等汇通情境的设想面临被打折扣的危机,至少仅仅是在低水平上徘徊。

要改变这种危机局面而实现真正的异趣沟通,需要重新召唤诗意启蒙的幽灵,在今天条件下重新创造有利于诗意生成并在这种诗意生成中实现理性提升目标的情境,再通过这种诗意启蒙去实现异趣沟通。这就需要重新回到文学文本的语言阅读中。重新唤回诗意启蒙的幽灵,意味着一是回到纸媒,即重塑以纸质媒介为核心的汉语媒介的权威,让读者带着个人生存体验和生存需求去手捧书本,寻求可能的人生启迪。二是细读文本,以严肃的姿态去冷静而细致地阅读汉语小说或汉译小说文本,从语词缝隙里解读其可能的丰富意义。三是激发感兴,即当个体的生存境遇同文本的世界在某个节点上实现视界融合,那么人生的意义就可能在这阅读的瞬间生成。四是品味余兴,即反复品评和体味文本中蕴藉的深长的余意绵绵的感兴。重新召唤诗意启蒙,不是要否定现在而回到过去,而只是要在承认现在的合理性的前提下去救治现在的症候,以便使现在重新成为具有健康机体的现在。文学教育的使命绝不只是知识传承或信息传播,而更是新的生存情境中人生原初意义的生成与符号化塑形。

新时期美学研究的问题域的转换 张玉能 华中师范大学文学院

提要:回顾新时期30年来的许多论争,我们可以发现新时期的美学研究的问题域产生了极大的转换,由20世纪5060年代的传统问题转向了西方现代美学的问题,主要表现在:由形而上的问题转向了形而下的问题,由一元化问题转向了多元化的问题,由抽象思辨的问题转向了生活世界的问题等等。这些应该说是中国美学发展的全球化趋势使然,但是,中国当代美学的问题域还没有显示出本土化的趋向,因此,虽然新时期美学研究及其争论成绩斐然,但是,自主创新的成果还并不多见。新世纪的美学研究应该转向中国当代的现实生活的问题,以构建中国特色的美学。新实践美学的努力方向就是如此。

Abstract: We could find that the problem’s field of aesthetic research has produced great transform if review many contests of 30 years of The New Era. That is from traditional problem of 50-60 age 0f 20th century to Western modern aesthetic problem and shows mainly from metaphysical problem to non-metaphysical problem, from monistic problem to pluralistic problem, from abstract, thinking problem to life world problem etc. These should be said that the trend of globalization of aesthetics of China causes it. But the problem’s field of contemporary aesthetics of China still has not show the trend of localization. So though the aesthetic research and its disputes have brilliant achievement, we have little independent creative fruit on it. The aesthetic research of new century should transform Chinese contemporary problem of real life, so that construct Chinese characteristic aesthetics. That is the struggling direction of The New Practice Aesthetics.

文学理论的学理性与寄生性 余虹 中国人民大学文学院

提要:文学理论的学理性与寄生性有内在关联。文学理论多学科与多主义的寄生性使其具有开放性与多元性的品格,同时也使它成为一个充满矛盾、冲突与论争的战场。文学理论的主义内冲突是可以兼容的、主义外冲突则不可兼容,不管哪种冲突都是文学理论知识生产的基本方式与扩展自身理论空间的基本方式。文学理论知识生产的机制与知识秩序的建立就在主义内和主义外的矛盾运动之中,正是对这一矛盾运动的盲视使中国文艺学知识建构的学理化进程受到根本阻碍。

俄罗斯文艺学历史研究和结构研究的结构 程正民 北京师范大学文艺学研究中心

提要:俄罗斯文艺学的历史主义传统是十分丰富和深厚的,是不断发展和创新的。其中包括俄国革命民主主义美学的历史主义传统,俄国文艺学经验学派的历史主义传统,俄国马克思主义文艺学的历史主义传统。

到了20世纪,俄国文艺学的历史主义传统面临形式主义和结构主义的挑战。面对挑战,俄罗斯文艺学派依然坚持历史主义传统,俄罗斯文艺学新出现的结构研究也没有抛弃历史主义传统,它们十分重视吸收历史主义的养分以克服自身的不足,并最终达到结构研究和历史研究的结合。文艺学界著名的结构符号学家洛特曼声称:“结构主义并非历史主义的敌人。”老一辈文艺学家利哈乔夫也指出:“重要的是在俄罗斯的结构主义研究系统中越来越流露出历史主义的态度,它归根结底将结构主义变成非结构主义,同时又允许从中吸收最好的因素。”

论文将通过三个个案,具体分析俄罗斯文艺学如何实现历史研究和结构研究的结合。普洛普:结构研究和历史研究;洛特曼:艺术文本和非艺术文本;巴赫金:体裁诗学和历史诗学。

从俄罗斯文论发展的历史可以看出,历史主义是俄罗斯文艺学的重要传统,而历史主义和结构主义的结合,历史研究和结构研究的结合又是俄罗斯文艺学发展的重要趋势。这种结合最终将形成内部研究和外部研究相贯通,形式研究和内容研究相融合,共时研究和历时研究相渗透的研究格局,为文艺学研究开拓新的理论空间。

文学性:百年文学理论的现代性追求 姚文放 扬州大学文学院

提要:俄国形式主义文论以对于文学理论科学化的追求为百年文学理论确立了现代性风标,百年文学理论产生了许多学派,包括英美新批评、结构主义、符号学、解构主义等,它们大多与俄国形式主义有着很深的渊源关系,特别是俄国形式主义提出的“文学性”问题,为各家各派凝定了现代性的魂魄,而百年文学理论的内在理路,也受到俄国形式主义现代性内涵的规定。

文学理论研究的知识状况——以文化批评为视角的反思 孙文宪 华中师范大学文学院

提要:文化批评其实是在与传统文学理论研究有别的另一种知识语境中、以另一种知识话语来理解和解释文学的。然而中国当代文学理论研究却忽略了理论“问题意识”的演变与知识状况之间的存在的这种对应关系,在对各种西方文学理论的介绍和阐释中,往往因为偏重“方法”或“模式”而忽略了理论生成的知识语境,忽略了理论研究与知识结构的内在关联。从这个角度看,文化批评对文学研究的冲击集中体现在它对国内文学理论研究知识状况的质疑,文学理论知识结构的更新已是迫在眉睫的问题。我们的理论研究不必也不会都在文化论域中展开,但是却不能不思考文化批评的知识结构对拓展文学理论研究视野的意义。

Abstract: Cultural criticism understands and explains literature according to another knowledge context and another knowledge discourse different from those of the traditional literary theories. Yet, in China, the contemporary literary theory ignores the relation between the evolution of academic “problem consciousness” and knowledge condition. In the introduction and explanation of all kinds of western literary theories, the scholars usually pay more attention to “methods” and “modes” than knowledge context in which theory creates as well as inner connection of theory research and knowledge framework. Viewed from this perspective, the impact of cultural criticism upon literary research concentrates on questioning knowledge condition of domestic literary theory research: it is an extremely urgent problem to renovate the knowledge framework of literary theory. Our theory research unnecessarily and can’t develop in cultural domain, but we have to reflect the meaning of the knowledge framework of cultural criticism in order to broaden the horizon of literary theory research.

跨文化视野中文学研究异质性的三个层次 张荣翼 武汉大学文学院

提要:当今我们处于一个全球化的时代,在此时代中,文学研究的方法、范式都带有了国际通行的律则,对各种不同文学的研讨都不可避免地要纳入到当今这种全球化的文化背景中进行参照,那么,在这样的研究语境中,有必要确立和加强跨文化视野中的文化交流意识,明确不同文化语境中文学的异质性。本篇文章把这种异质性归纳了三个方面:差异层次、梯级层次和对话层次。

中西文论异质性比较研究——新批评在中国的命运 代迅 西南大学文学院

提要:新批评是现代英语学界文学研究中影响最大的一个理论流派,持续时间也最长。新批评在中国的传播时间早,时间跨度长,其主要代表人物瑞恰兹、燕卜荪等人曾长期在中国讲学,但是新批评对中国文论界的影响始终不大。英美新批评与作为中国现代主流文论的马克思主义文论,在意识形态上存在着难以逾越的深深鸿沟,在艺术理论上也有着鲜明的异质性。中国古代文论文论带有强烈的印象式批评特点,推崇“知人论世”,主张“以意逆志”,在思想内容的尚质尚用和在艺术形式的尚质尚简,而新批评则带有强烈的形式主义和科学主义倾向,反对“意图谬误”和“动情谬误”,尽管新批评与中国古代文艺思想之间也有着某种程度上的相通之处,但是两者之间这些强烈和根本的异质性,以及现代中国诸多社会历史条件的制约,决定了新批评在中国必然遭遇到被冷落和忽视的地位,始终处于边缘化的境遇。

Abstract: New criticism was the dominant trend in English and American literary criticism of twentieth century, of longest duration. New criticism was earlier diffused in China and longer lasted. Its prominent figures William Empson and I. A. Richards had taught in China for a long time. It has had little influence upon Chinese literary theory. There is a huge gulf in ideology and artistic theory between Anglo-American new criticism and Marxism literary theory as dominant trend in modern China. Chinese ancient literary theory insisted on impressionistic, biographical, historical and reader response criticism, focused attention on utility and simplicity of literary works. Contrarily, new criticism is distinctly formalist in character. It stresses the use of scientific method to explain the work, argues strongly against intentional fallacy and affective fallacy. There are a few points of similarity between new criticism and Chinese ancient literary theory. New criticism is doomed to the fringe of Chinese discourse because it is great different and heterogeneous from Chinese ancient literary theory.

文艺理论要面向当代,关注问题——对当下文艺理论研究现状的一些思考

马驰 上海社会科学院思想文化研究中心

提要:中国近30年的文论研究突破了以往机械反映论、庸俗唯物主义等的理论桎梏,大胆吸收国外的思想成果,取得了长足的进步。但也暴露出一些自身亟待解决的问题:对社会思潮的关注过于对文本的重视;对新潮理论的追逐过于对基本问题的研究;对西方文艺思潮的引进过于对中国现实问题的关怀。

Abstract: The study of literary theory in China around latest 30 years, freed from the shackle of mechanical theory of reflection and vulgar materialism, absorbing the international fresh thoughts, have been making great progress. Some problems, however, emerged and need solving in this developing process, such as thinking too much of social trends of thought than the literature text itself, following new thoughts much more than researching the basic problems, and introducing trends of western literary thoughts over considering realistic problems in China.

新时期文论转型发展之反思 赖大仁 江西师范大学当代形态文艺学研究中心、文学院

提要:反思新时期文论的变革发展,大致经历了三个主要发展阶段,近期却似乎陷入了空前的理论困惑与焦虑之中。这不得不促使我们回到理论原点上重新思考:文学理论存在的理由和根据何在?当代文论创新发展的依据与可能性何在?首先,文学理论的基本功能和价值在于:尽可能对文学现象做出合乎实际的认识和解释,努力引导文学活动成为一种更为自由自觉的活动,更加有利于人的解放和自由全面发展,有利于人类社会的文明进步。对于历史上的文论学说,不宜低估其意义价值,仅仅当作过时的“知识”看待,其理论形态中所包含的思想方法和理论智慧,至今仍具有极大的启示意义。其次,当代文论的创新发展,主要有两个方面:一是追踪各种新的文学现象进行研究阐释。但当代文论是否非要追踪最新潮流,如当今文学的网络化、图像化、市场化、大众化、消费化等等,这本身就值得怀疑。面对当今文学形态的种种新奇变异与“泛化”现象,我们关注和研究的重心,理应是那些文学中心地带的现象,是那些真正关乎审美情感与人生人性的具有重要文学意义价值的现象。二是追随国外各种新潮理论学说加以译介阐发。不过在近一时期的后现代文化转向中,文论边界不断拓展乃至于不断“越界”,文学研究愈来愈成为一种文化学、社会学研究,文论自身的基本问题反倒迷失或被悬置了,甚至导致自我消解陷入深重危机。当代文论的创新发展有必要引入各种有价值的理论资源,这并不意味着只看到当下的新潮理论。而且对当代文学问题的探讨,也并不意味着追逐最新或最时尚的话题,还是需要从当今时代要求出发,以现代性精神和创新性观念重新认识探讨。此外,当代文论在学科化的转型发展过程中,过于偏重把文学理论当作知识形态对待,而忽视了它作为一种诗性智慧的特性,文学研究者更偏向于追求做“专家”而不是做“学者”,这种现象也同样是值得关注和反思的。

AbstractAfter undergoing three stages in the New Period, Chinese literary theory has recently run into an unprecedented theoretical perplexity which leads us to rethink why literary theory should exists and what possibilities exist for its development. First of all, the basic function and value of literary theory is to formulate a proper understanding and explanation of literary phenomena. In doing so and self-conscious literary activity will be promoted, and one will therefore contribute to the emancipation and free integrated development of the whole human being and the progress of social civilization. It would be inappropriate to underestimate the value of traditional literary theories, taking them as outdated knowledge. The way of thinking included in the theory is still enlightening because it shows the possibilities. Secondly, there are two aspects of the development of contemporary literary theory. One is studying and elucidating the latest literary phenomena. It is doubtful that there is any necessity to trace the newest literature trend, such as networking, marketing, popularizing and consuming. As the border of literature becoming wider and wider, one should pay more attention to those literature works that most concern aesthetic emotion and human nature. The other is translating and explaining the latest western literary theories. Recently the border of literary theory has been crossed frequently. The study of literature is becoming more and more like the study of culture or sociology. The basic questions of literary theory are seldom mentioned. That may lead to the death of theory itself. It is necessary to introduce various valuable theories in developing contemporary literary theory. But this does not mean only the latest one is valuable. The same applies to discussing contemporary literature. It is reasonable to discuss these topics with a modern spirit and innovative ideas in order to keep the pace with the times. In addition, as theory becoming institutionalized, it has been treated as knowledge rather than Poetic Wisdom. Literature researchers are more willing to be a specialists rather than scholars. This situation certainly deserves further study.

审美是一种表达——重申艺术语义学的一种路径 徐岱 浙江大学传媒与国际文化学院

提要:所以在美学领域理,“艺术与宣传”的命题永远有其重要的意义。当代美学要想继续叩问审美奥秘、探寻艺术精神的实质,仍然无法对它回避。对于中国批评界,“艺术与宣传”的话题曾经受到广泛的关注。鲁迅就美国作家辛克来儿“一切文艺是宣传”的观点发表了自己的见解。他一方面表示接受这话,认为任何作品“一写出,就有宣传的可能。”但同时也表示:一切文艺术固是宣传,而一切宣传却并非全是文艺。因为“革命之所以于口号、标语、布告、电报、教科书……之外,要用文艺者,就因为它是文艺。”

但仍然需要继续澄清一个问题:艺术与宣传的区分究竟是什么?作为宣传的艺术作品与借艺术作宣传的东西,二者到底有何不同?无论如何,表现方式也即“怎么说”,对于我们区分“作为艺术的宣传”和“借艺术来作宣传”有着应有的位置。但归根到底,决定一首诗究竟是否货真价实的“诗”的,仍然是其所表达的内容本身,必须是一种能够被以诗化的方式来处置和对待的诗性的东西。所以即便是形式主义文论家什克洛夫斯基也同样认为,艺术之所以是艺术,正因为它能看到不会成为过去的真理。

艺术实践在这个意义上体现出一种“元政治”的关怀,这就是对以个体存在为本色的人类生命的关爱与尊重。“诗人”也是在这个意义上成为世间未经公认的“立法者”。契柯夫认为:大作家和大艺术家只应当在必须避开政治的限度上过问政治。这种“非政治的政治”也就是对“非人”化倾向的坚决抵制。用利奥塔的话说:除了对这个非人的抵抗以外,所谓的“政治”还剩下什么呢?为了进行这种抵抗,除了每个人和另一个非人共同的债务之外,还剩下什么呢?事实上这既是现代主义艺术的主题,同样也是后现代艺术的主题。因为社会公正是人类文明的前提和保障。

只有在这样的意义上,我们才能更好地厘清“作为艺术的宣传”和“名为艺术的宣传”的关系。前者虽然有宣传的内容但却是名符其实的艺术,后者尽管看似艺术但却是货真价实的宣传。从审美语义学视野看,对二者的区别具有决定性意义的,主要不在于所采用的“表达”方式,而是所“宣传”的信息。就像毕加索的名作《格尔尼卡》尽管明确是对西班牙法西斯政权对格尔尼卡这座小城的狂轰滥炸的抗议,但仍然是一幅优秀的绘画作品,因为它不仅触及我们的大脑,还有更深一层的心灵。

毫无疑问,“艺术”从来不是一个简单的所指,现实生活中有各种各样的艺术家,也存在大相径庭的艺术品。但是我们决不能想当然地以为,凡是挂着羊头的店铺就一定不卖狗肉。诚然,就像集市是戏剧的发源地之一,人类艺术实践永远留有一个通俗文化的胎记。但这并不表明它没有一个具有约束力的边际。只要我们能够将那些徒有艺术形式的艺术赝品所遮蔽的东西揭示出来,那么美的中立性就表现为一种欺骗,它们作为艺术赝品的真相就会大白。

AbstractArt is not a simple signified.In our life,there are different kinds of artists,so are works of art. But we should not believe that the shop hanged the sheephead will not sell dog. It is so doubtful that these Art to be the real Art.Of course like the market is one of the origin of Opera,the Human Art practice has the birthmark of popular culture.But that is not say that Art has no restrictive boundary. Just like Herbert Marcuse said that if we can reveal the things from the Art which only has form,the neutrality of the beauty will be the cheat,and this Art is just a fakement will be known to all.

So in the field of aesthetic,the proposition “art and propagandism” has important signification forever. If the Aesthetics in the contemporary want to realize the essential of The spirit of Art,this problem should not be neglect.lu Xun had ever expressed his idea on the view of “ All of the Art are propagandism”made by American writer Sinclair .On one side,he accepted this idea,but on the other side,he said that all of the Art are propagandism,but all of the propagandism are not the Art.

But we should also make sure another question:what is the distinction between Art and propagandism?Which factor distinct “the propagandism to be Art”and “the propagandism in the name of Art”?In any case,what determines a “poem” to be the real poem is ofcourse the content itself.It must be the one to be treated as poem.So the Russian literary theorist Shklovsky said that Why Art is Art is because it can see the truth that will be forever.

From this way ,The Art practice reveal the solicitude of “metapolitics”,it’s respect and care for the single life.From this mean,the “poet”is “the legislator” of the world. Chekhov said,the Great writer and artist should be care for politics on the condition of avoiding politics.That non-politics politics is a protest for the “non-human”.Loyotard said except the protest of “non-human”,what will remain?except for the debt of everyone and non-human,what will remain?It is the subject of modern art,it is also the subject of post-modern Art.Because Justice is the safeguard of the civilization.

Only in that mean,we can clarify the relation between “the propagandism to be Art”and “the propagandism in the name of Art”.Although the first one has the content of propagandism,it is a real Art.Although the later one seems like the Art,it is propagandism in fact.From the view of semasiology of Art,it is important to district each other.The more important one is the message of “propagandism ”,not the style of “expression”.Just like Picasso’s “Guernica”is ofcourse the protest for the bombing from Nazi,but it is also an wonderful painting.Because it not only touchs our mind,but also made our heart moved.

作为方法的乌托邦,或未来的用途 弗雷德里克·詹姆逊 美国杜克大学

通常我们认为乌托邦是个地方,也可以说是看似一个地方而并非一个地方。一个地方怎么能成为一种方法呢?这就是我想让你们面对的问题,而且可能有一个容易的答案。如果我们历史地考虑新的空间形式——例如新的城市形式——它们很可能为城市规划者提供新的方法,而在这种意义上,地方就构成一种方法。例如,洛杉矶的第一批高速公路,它们把一种新的升高的高速公路系统迭加在旧的平面街道系统上面:这种新的结构的差别本身可以被认为是一种哲学概念,一种新的概念,由此出发,你可能会重新思考这个或那个旧的城市中心,或者更进一步,这个或那个有待于发展的阳光地带的连接(阳光地带指从美国加利福尼亚到北卡莱罗纳横跨美国的阳光充足的地带——译注)。于是,有一段时间,洛杉矶的概念就是现代;它是不是乌托邦的完全是另一个问题,但很长时间,对于许多不同的人来说,洛杉矶也确实是一种乌托邦。布莱希特是这样评论好莱坞的:

好莱坞村是按照这地方人们/心里的天堂概念设计。在这里/人们认识到需要天堂和地狱的上帝,/不需要设计两种住所,只需要/一种:天堂即是。它对于/不富裕、不成功的人/就是地狱。

这是一种真正的辩证;真正的对立统一!这个乌托邦像所有其他的乌托邦一样,也许一开始根本就不曾存在,在这种特殊的乌托邦里,是否有可能理清否定和肯定的方面?这正是我们这里要讨论的问题;但在讨论之前,我们需要进一步做些准备工作。

对于前提的例子,即一种新型城市为其他未来新型城市的建设或组织树立样板,其基本依据是我们不再相信进步是可能的,例如城市可以改进。于是“什么是乌托邦”的问题便与现在已成传统的、倍受批判的资产阶级进步观念相一致,并因此含蓄地与目的论本身相一致,与宏大叙事和总体计划相一致,与一个更好的未来的观念相一致——这个未来不仅依靠我们自己实现它的意志,而且在某种程度上是事物本身的性质,是深层存在的可能性和潜力,它有待于释放出来,并最终会幸运地出现。但是,是否还有人相信进步呢?即使按照我们的例子限定于空间领域,是否建筑师和城市规划者仍然激情地为乌托邦的城市工作?毫无疑问,乌托邦的城市是现代主义的主题:人们会想到从勒考比西埃到康斯坦、从洛克菲勒中心到纳粹或伟大的苏维埃计划的每一个人。在更低的层面上,人们会想到城市的更新或罗伯特·莫塞斯。但现代主义已成过去,我的印象是,后现代的城市,不论西方还是东方,北方还是南方,都不会鼓励进步甚至改进的思想,更不用说旧日的乌托邦想象;这种看法的理由是,后现代的城市似乎处于永恒的危机之中,好像只能被看作是一种灾难而不是机会。就空间而言,富人正在迫不及待地退到他们装了大门的社区和严加防护的围墙之内;中产阶级不知疲倦忙于以新开发的同样的住宅掩盖自然的最后的痕迹;而从以前的乡村涌入城市的穷人则在临时性的郊区不断膨胀,人口激增,无法抵制,用不了几年,世界上最大的十个城市将不再包括第一世界的大都会。一些过去的伟大的反乌托邦作品——我想到20世纪70年代约翰·布鲁纳的小说——曾集中描写当时公认的人口过剩的梦魇;但那是现代主义的梦魇,而我们今天所面对的也许不是反乌托邦的,而是以一种相当不同的方式实际经历的东西,带有真正的后现代的模糊性;它俨然排除了进步或解决的可能。

实际上,只要想想今天对人类生存的四大威胁就足以说明问题——生态灾难,世界范围的贫困和饥饿,全球范围的结构性的失业,似乎无法控制的各种武器交易,包括激光制导导弹和无人驾驶飞机(在武器方面,进步仍然明显存在!)——只要想想这四种威胁的趋势(导致传染病,警察国家,种族战争,以及不相关的毒品)就足以使我们认识到,在这些领域的任何一个当中,世界上任何地方都没有真正有力的对抗力量,当然在美国是没有的,因为美国本身就是造成大部分这些威胁的原因。

在这种情况下,真正的乌托邦想象的最后希望,乌托邦预见美好未来的最后努力,都成了相当反常的东西,我的意思是指所谓的自由市场基础论,它抓住全球化的时刻,预言世界范围不加控制的全球市场会带来全面发展,具有奇妙的产生奇迹的力量。但这曾是一种乌托邦,依赖于亚当·斯密看不见的手的无意识的运作,它与乌托邦的“有意图的社会”的极度的意识明显不同,对它的普适性的灵丹妙药进行疯狂地赌博,而世界上大部分的人都急于获得这种灵丹妙药。这种正在消逝的乌托邦的努力,尽管从经济到政治不断改变它的规则,把市场自由变换为民主自由,但它并没有恢复多少力量。就此而言,作为一个政治口号,乌托邦的旗帜已经传到了批评家的手上,传到了自由市场全球化的敌人的手上,对于所有想象另一个可能的世界的各种新的政治力量,它已经变成了团结一致的呐喊或“空洞的能指”。

然而,空洞的能指远远脱离了从柏拉图和莫尔以降我们所熟悉的那种乌托邦想象,因此这里我也许应该谈谈我前不久出版的论乌托邦的著作《未来考古学》。这篇文章即使不是对那本书的补充,也可以说是对它的重新思考。那本书可能纠缠其读者认真思考(假如不是令他们厌烦)的东西,不仅是反复强调乌托邦的形式而非内容——表面看似乎属于正常的文学批评,尽管这么看令人悲哀——而且还有另一个更容易抓住不在意的读者的主题,这就是它反复强调乌托邦之重要不在于它可以正面想象和建议的东西,而在于它无法想象和难以想象的东西。我认为,乌托邦不是一种表征而是一种作用,旨在揭示我们对未来想象的局限,超越这种局限,我们似乎再不能想象我们自己社会和世界的变化(除非是反乌托邦和灾难方面的变化)。那么这是想象的无能,还是对变化的可能性的根本怀疑——不论我们对理想的变化的想象多么诱人?这里我们难道没有触及所说的犬儒主义的原因,而不是我们的未来感的贫乏或者乌托邦冲动本身的消失?由于犬儒主义的概念已经远远超出了皮特·斯劳特迪克(Peter Sloterdyk)多年前提出时的意义,所以它的特征可以说有些像是政治冷漠的反面表现。它知道我们社会的一切,知道晚期资本主义一切错误的东西,知道这种制度的一切结构性的毒害,然而它不表示愤怒,而是表现出明显的无能——不一定是坏的信念。它既不可能受打击也不可能被诽谤中伤,如像市场体制早期阶段特权基层可能遭受的那样;而对这种制度的揭露,对它的分析以及它在光天化日之下所展现的功能,也不再促使它进行批判或形成批评的动因。所有这些我们也可以从意识形态方面来讨论:如果意识形态这个词处于困难时期,也许是因为在某种意义上不再有任何错误的意识,不再需要以理性化的理想主义或利他主义来掩饰这种制度的作用以及它的各种计划,因此暴露这些理性化的问题,以及揭穿它们的基本姿态,似乎都再无必要。

于是乌托邦的消逝便成了所有这些发展之间的一种结合:历史性或未来感的削弱,深信不论多么期望变化也不可能再有根本的变化,还有因此而出现的犬儒主义的观念。对此我们也许可以添上自上次世界大战以来过度积累的金钱的绝对力量,这种力量保持着资本主义在各个地方的地位,同时强化着它的机制和它的武装力量。或许我们还应该援用另一种不同的因素,一种心理适应的因素——就是说,无处不在的消费主义本身已经变成了一种目的,它正在改变发达国家的日常生活,而它的方式表明,由多种欲望和消费构成的乌托邦主义在这里已经存在,无须再增加什么。

关于我们想象乌托邦的能力的局限,以及我们再不能展望未来的现时的情况,暂时就谈这些。但是,如果说乌托邦的表征今天已经在各个地方消失,显然是错误的。我的书所做的另一个重要的批判表明,我没有尽到一个乌托邦主义者的责任,因为我漏掉了那些仍然存在的乌托邦的想象,这些想象大部分集中于反共产主义或后共产主义的信念,即认为小的就是美的,甚至认为发展并不是理想的,社区的自我组织才是乌托邦生活的基本条件,即使对于大规模的工业,首要的东西也是自我管理和合作:换句话说,乌托邦主义的本质不是独创的经济计划(例如取消货币),而是集体本身,社会联系要比个人主义和竞争的动机更加重要。

20世纪60年代(和70年代)伟大的乌托邦倾向于从种族和性属方面展现这种想象:因此在马吉·佩尔西(Marge Peircy)的《时代边缘的妇女》(Woman on the Edge of Time, 1976)里我们看到了难以忘记的男性乳房喂养的形象,看到了(在厄秀拉·勒奎恩的作品里)最早的美国人村庄的理想。后来,在一个不同的历史时刻,在法国,在1981年社会党取得选举胜利的时刻,我们看到了雅克·阿塔利(Jacques Attali)自由的集体工具车间的形象,在那里,每一个邻居都能找到修理、重建、改变空间的原料;还有周期性的节日,它们像在卢梭的作品里那样,再次肯定了集体本身的计划。同时,在我们自己的时代,随着无政府主义的复活,对于工人们自我管理的各种生动的再现恢复了对这些问题的阶级意识,例如诺米·克雷恩(Naomi Klein)值得赞赏的电影《收回》,描写了阿根廷一家破产工厂的厂主抛弃了工人,工人们占据了工厂。这种对车间基层结构变革的断断续续的想象,从马克思关于公社的演说到南斯拉夫的工厂自治再到关于六十年代的电影,如《为行动而行动》(Coup pour coup, 1972),确实激活并强化了政治行动;而这种想象在美国的昨天和今天都明显地存在。

对这些飞地式的乌托邦进行实际的政治否定是不合适的,因为它们总是受到它们周围的私有企业和垄断霸权的威胁,受到分配制度的摆布,更不用说还受统治的司法制度的约束。这里我想谈谈革命的抒情诗这一文类:实际上,在威廉·燕卜荪的《田园诗种种》(Versions of Pastoral, 1960)里,他走了很长的路才把社会主义现实主义吸纳到这种形式,鉴于其中所描写的牧羊的男女,乡村的恬静和满足,这种形式似乎在资产阶级时期的文学里已经完全消失。威廉·莫里斯把他伟大的乌托邦的副标题定名为“休闲的时代”:在审美层面上,这确实是田园诗作为一个文类展现的前景:摆脱了真实社会世界的巨大的焦虑,看见了一个平静的地方,一个理想的富于人性的地方,一个改变了今天我们所知道的社会关系的地方,一个社会关系成为布莱希特所说的“友好”关系的地方。在那种意义上,我所说的再现的乌托邦今天确实像是采取了田园诗的形式;因此,在心理和无意识充满狂乱与躁动、压抑和障碍的时代,我们需要恢复这些古代文类的意义以及它们的价值和作用。

我确实认为这种再现的乌托邦的占有一定的地位,甚至具有政治上的作用:正如我在《未来考古学》试图论证的,这些看似平静的形象本身也是强烈的断裂,它动摇了那种认为未来与我们现在相同的陈腐观念,干预并中断了习惯性的对制度的复制以及对意识形态的赞同,从而打开了一条裂缝,不论这个裂缝多么小,开始可能像头发丝那么细小,但通过这个裂缝,另一种未来、另一种制度的时间性的图像却可能出现。

然而今天我想提出一种不同的援用那种未来的方式,提出一种不同的乌托邦的作用;在某种意义上,它的前提是我在书的开始所提出的那种区分:区分乌托邦计划和乌托邦冲动,区分乌托邦的规划者和乌托邦的解释者,例如,如果你们喜欢,区分莫尔或傅立叶和布洛赫。乌托邦计划的目的是争取实现某种乌托邦,它可以是谦逊的也可以是雄心勃勃的,因人而定:可以从整个国家甚至世界范围的社会革命,一直到单独一个建筑或花园的独特的乌托邦空间的设计;但是,除了乌托邦对现实本身的改革之外,它们有一个共同之处,这就是它们都必须以某种方式面对封闭的或飞地的结构。因此这些乌托邦空间无论其范围如何都是整体性的;它们象征着一个改变了的世界;这样它们就必须在乌托邦和非乌托邦之间假定界限;而只有从这种界限和这种飞地结构出发,才能开始对乌托邦进行认真的批判。

不过,对乌托邦冲动的解释必须考虑一些碎片:这种冲动不是象征的而是寓言的,它既不符合乌托邦计划也不符合乌托邦实践,它表达乌托邦的欲望,并采取各种预想不到的、掩饰的、遮盖的、扭曲的方式。因此乌托邦冲动需要某种阐释:需要探索发现的工作,在真实的风光里解释和解读出乌托邦的线索和痕迹;需要对乌托邦在现实中的无意识的投入进行理论阐述和解释,不论这种投入是大是小,也不论这种投入本身的实际情况是不是与乌托邦远离。这里的前提是:最有害的现象可以用作各种意料之外的愿望实现和乌托邦满足的储藏室和隐蔽地。

现在,我需要澄清我的题目所说的“方法”,并对我所提供的两种奇怪的、甚至反常的解读进行理论的说明。我认为这里概述的乌托邦的“方法”既不是阐释的计划也不是政治的计划,而是像结构的颠倒,即福柯遵循尼采所称的谱系学。他用谱系学的意思是使他自己的(甚或更一般化的或后现代的)“方法”与经验主义的历史或唯心主义历史学家重构的进化论的叙事明显地区分开来,形成鲜明的对照。谱系学事实上不应理解为年代顺序,也不应理解为叙事,而是一种逻辑活动(采用黑格尔的“逻辑”的意思,但不是黑格尔的论述)。换言之,谱系学的意思是把某种既定现象出现的各种逻辑前提置于适当的位置,但并以任何方式包含前提构成现象的原因,更不用说先前的现象或一些早期的阶段。诚然,由于谱系的前提几乎总是采取先前历史事件的形式,所以误解——以及把新的构成纳入旧的历史方法(年代学,因果关系,叙事,理想主义的社区)——总是不可避免的。

对于未来的建构,迄今没有任何术语像谱系对建构过去那么有用;肯定不能把它称为未来学,我想乌托邦学也没有什么意义。但是,这种活动本身在于以巨大的努力改变迄今只存在于我们现时之中的一些现象的价值;以实验的态度肯定我们自己世界里明显否定的事物,肯定反乌托邦如果更仔细地观察其实就是乌托邦,同时要把我们现时经验中的具体特征分离出来,把它们看作是一种不同制度的构成因素。

这种未来的阐释只在一种特定意义上是政治行为:即它有助于重新唤醒关于可能的、另外的未来的想象,重新唤醒我们的制度——自以为是历史的终结——必然压制并使之瘫痪的那种历史性。在这种意义上,乌托邦学可以复活思想里长期睡眠的部分,复活政治、历史和社会想象中因不用而退化的器官,复活因长期不锻炼而僵硬的肌肉,复活因长期习惯于不行动而丧失的革命姿态。这种对未来性复活和假定不同的未来本身并不是政治的计划,甚至也不是政治的实践:但如果没有这种复活,很难看到如何能形成持久的、有效的政治行动。

(王逢振译)

FJ-Part

UTOPIA AS METHOD, OR, THE USES OF THE FUTURE

We ordinarily think of Utopia as a place, or if you like a non-place that looks like a place. How can a place be a method? Such is the conundrum with which I wanted to confront you, and maybe it has an easy answer. If we think of historically new forms of space – historically new forms of the city, for example – they might well offer new models for urbanists and in that sense constitute a kind of method. The first freeways in Los Angeles, for example, project a new system of elevated express highways superimposed on an older system of surface streets: that new structural difference might be thought to be a philosophical concept in its own right, a new one, in terms of which you might want to rethink this or that older urban center, or better still, this or that as yet undeveloped sunbelt agglomeration. For a time then, the Los Angeles concept is modern; whether it is Utopian is another matter altogether, although Los Angeles has also been a Utopia for many different kinds of people over the years. Here is Brecht on Hollywood:

The village of Hollywood was planned according to the notion

People in these parts have of heaven. In these parts

They have come to the conclusion that God

Requiring a heaven and a hell, didn’t need to

Plan two establishments but

Just the one: heaven. It

Serves the unprosperous, unsuccessful

As hell.

A true dialectic; a true unity of opposites! Will it be possible to untangle the negative from the positive in this particular Utopia, which has perhaps also, like all the other Utopias, never existed in the first place? Something like this will be our problem here; but we need to work through some further preliminaries before we get that far.

For the hypothetical example of a new kind of city that sets an example for the building or reorganization of other new kinds of cities to come is based on a conviction we may no longer be able to rely on, namely, the belief that progress is possible and that cities, for example, can be improved. What is Utopian is then identified with this now traditional and much criticized bourgeois idea of progress, and thus implicitly with teleology as such, with the grand narrative and the master plan, with the idea of a better future, a future not only dependent on our own will to bring it into being but also somehow inscribed in the very nature of things, waiting to be set free, lying in the deeper possibilities and potentialities of being, from which at length and with luck it may emerge. But does anyone believe in progress any longer? Even keeping to the realm of the spatial we have taken as an example, are the architects and urbanists still passionately at work on Utopian cities? The Utopian city was surely a staple of modernism: one thinks of everybody from LeCorbusier to Constant, from Rockefeller Center to the great Nazi or Soviet projects. At a lower level, one thinks of urban renewal and of Robert Moses. But modernism is over, and it is my impression that the postmodern city, west or east, north or south, does not encourage thoughts of progress or even improvement, let alone Utopian visions of the older kind; and this for the very good reason that the postmodern city seems to be in permanent crisis, and to be thought of, if at all, as a catastrophe rather than an opportunity. As far as space is concerned, the rich are withdrawing ever more urgently into their gated communities and their fortified enclosures; the middle classes are tirelessly engaged in covering the last vestiges of nature with acres of identical development homes; while the poor, pouring in from the former countryside, swell the makeshift outskirts with a population explosion so irrepressible that in a few years none of the ten largest cities on the globe will include the familiar first-world metropolises any longer. Some of the great dystopias of the past – I think of John Brunner’s novels from the early 1970s– centered on what was then the alleged nightmare of overpopulation; but that was a modernist nightmare, and what we confront today is perhaps not a dystopia either, but rather a certainty lived in a rather different way and with a properly postmodern ambivalence; which at any rate distinctly forecloses the possibility of progress or of solutions.

Indeed, it suffices to think of the four fundamental threats to the survival of the human race today – ecological catastrophe, worldwide poverty and famine, structural unemployment on a global scale, and the seemingly uncontrollable traffic in armaments of all kinds, including smart bombs and unmanned drones (in armaments, progress does apparently still exist!) – it suffices to think of these four trends alone (leaving pandemics, police states, race wars, and drugs out of the picture) for us to realize that in each of these areas no serious counterforce exists anywhere in the world, and certainly not in the United States, which is itself the cause of most of them.

Under these circumstances, the last gasp of a properly Utopian vision, the last attempt at a Utopian forecast of the future transfigured, was a rather perverse one, I mean so-called free market fundamentalism as it seized the moment of globalization to predict the rising of all boats and the wonder-working miraculous powers of world-wide unregulated global markets. But this was a Utopia which, drawing on the unconscious operations of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and in sharp contrast to the hyperconsciousness of the Utopian “intentional community”, gambled everything on the unintentionality of its universal panacea, for which any number of populations around the globe proved unwilling to wait. Nor did this waning Utopian effort recover much strength by shifting to a different code, from economics to politics, and rebaptizing the freedom of the market as the freedom of democracy. To that degree, as a political slogan, the banner of Utopia has been passed to the critics and the enemies of free-market globalization and has become the unifying rallying cry or “empty signifier” of all those varied new political forces who are trying to imagine how another world might be possible.

Yet an empty signifier seems far enough away from the Utopian visions with which we are familiar from More and Plato on down, and this is probably the right moment to say a word about the long book on Utopias I have just published and of which this essay is something of a reconsideration, if not a supplement. What has tended to perplex readers of this book, Archeologies of the Future, if not to annoy them, is not only the repeated insistence on the form rather than the content of Utopias – something that would on the face of it scarcely be unusual in literary criticism, no matter how deplorable – but also another thesis more likely to catch the unwary reader up short, namely the repeated insistence that what is important in a Utopia is not what can be positively imagined and proposed, but rather what is not imaginable and not conceivable. The Utopia, I argue, is not a representation but an operation calculated to disclose the limits of our own imagination of the future, the lines beyond which we do not seem able to go in imagining changes in our own society and world (except in the direction of dystopia and catastrophe). Is this then a failure of imagination, or is it rather simply a fundamental skepticism about the possibilities of change as such, no matter how attractive our visions of what it would be desirable to change into? Do we not here touch on what has come to be called cynical reason, rather than the impoverishment of our own sense of the future, or the waning of the Utopian impulse itself? Cynical reason, as the concept has evolved far beyond what Peter Sloterdyk named so many years ago, can be characterized as something like the inversion of political apathy. It knows everything about our own society, everything that is wrong with late capitalism, all the structural toxicities of the system, and yet it declines indignation, in a kind of impotent lucidity which may not even be bad faith. It cannot be shocked or scandalized, as the privileged were able to be at earlier moments of the market system; nor is the deconcealment of this system, its analysis and functional demonstration in the light of day, any longer effective in compelling critical reactions or motivations. We may say all this in terms of ideology as well: if that word has fallen on hard times, it is perhaps because in a sense there is no longer any false consciousness, no longer any need to disguise the workings of the system and its various programs in terms of idealistic or altruistic rationalizations; so that the unmasking of those rationalizations, the primordial gesture of debunking and of exposure, no longer seems necessary.

The waning of Utopias is thus a conjuncture between all these developments: a weakening of historicity or of the sense of the future; a conviction that no fundamental change is any longer possible, however desirable; and cynical reason as such. To which we might add that sheer power of excess money accumulated since the last great world war, which keeps the system in place everywhere, reinforcing its institutions and its armed forces. Or maybe we should also adduce yet a different kind of factor, one of psychological conditioning – namely that omnipresent consumerism which, having become an end in itself, is transforming the daily life of the advanced countries in such a way as to suggest that the Utopianism of multiple desires and consumption is here already and needs no further supplement.

So much for the limits on our capacity to imagine Utopia as such, and for what it tells us about a present in which we cannot any longer envision that future. But it would clearly be wrong to say that the representational Utopia has everywhere today disappeared; and another significant critique of my book suggested that I failed to do my duty as a Utopian insomuch as I omitted any mention of these surviving Utopian visions, which mostly center on the anti- or post-communist conviction that small is beautiful, or even that growth is undesirable, that the self-organization of communities is the fundamental condition of Utopian life, and that even with large-scale industry the first priority is self-management and cooperation: in other words, that what is essential in Utopianism is not the ingenious economic scheme (such as the abolition of money, for example) so much as it is collectivity as such, the primacy of the social bond over the individualistic and the competitive impulses.

The great Utopias of the 1960s (and 70s) tended to stage such visions in terms of race and gender: thus we have the unforgettable image of male breast-feeding in Marge Peircy’s Woman on the Edge of Time (1976), and the ideal (in LeGuin as well) of the villages of the First Americans. Later on, at a different historical moment, in France, at the moment of the socialist electoral victory of 1981, we have Jacques Attali’s image of free collective tool-shops, where anyone in the neighborhood can find the materials to repair, to rebuild, to transform space; along with the periodic festivals that, as in Rousseau, reaffirm the collective project itself. In our own time, meanwhile, with the resurgence of anarchism, a variety of vivid representations of workers’ self-management restore the sense of class to these concerns, as in Naomi Klein’s admirable film The Take, about the seizure of a factory in Argentina by workers who have been abandoned by their bankrupt owner. Such intermittent visions of the structural transformation of the shopfloor itself have energized and revitalized political action from Marx’s lectures on the Commune all the way to the program of Jugoslavian autogestion and to soixante-huitard films like Coup pour coup (Marin Karmitz, 1972); and they clearly persist in America yesterday and today.

It is not appropriate to raise practical political objections to these enclave utopias, always threatened by the hegemony of private business and monopoly all around them, and at the mercy of distribution as well, not to speak of the dominant legal system. I would rather speak of the genre of the revolutionary idyll: and indeed, in his Versions of Pastoral (1960), William Empson went a long way towards assimilating socialist realism in general to such a form, which, with its shepherds and shepherdesses and its rural peacefulness and fulfillment, seems to have died out everywhere in the literature of the bourgeois age as such. William Morris famously subtitled his great Utopia “an epoch of rest”: and this is indeed what, on an aesthetic level, the idyll or the pastoral promises as a genre: relief from the frenzied anxieties of the actual social world, a glimpse into a place of stillness and of transfigured human nature, of the transformations of the social relations we know today into what Brecht memorably called “friendliness”. To that degree, what I’ve been calling representational Utopias today do seem to take the form of the idyll or the pastoral; and assuredly we do need to recover the significance of these ancient genres and their value and usefulness in an age in which the very psyche and the unconscious have been so thoroughly colonized by addictive frenzy and commotion, compulsiveness and frustration.

So I do see a place for the representational utopia, and even a political function for it: as I tried to argue in Archeologies, these seemingly peaceful images are also, in and of themselves, violent ruptures with what is, breaks that destabilize our stereotypes of a future that is the same as our own present, intervention that interrupt the reproduction of the system in habit and in ideological consent and institute that fissure, however minimal and initially little more than a hair-line fracture, through which another picture of the future and another system of temporality altogether might emerge.

Yet today I also want to project a different way of invoking that future and to propose a different function for the Utopian; and in a sense it is premised on the distinction I proposed at the very beginning of my book between the Utopian program and the Utopian impulse, between Utopian planners and Utopian interpreters, so to speak, or if you like, between More or Fourier and Ernst Bloch. The Utopian program, which aims at the realization of a Utopia, can be as modest or as ambitious as one wants: it can range from a whole social revolution, on the national or even the world scale, all the way down to the designing of the uniquely Utopian space of a single building or garden: what all have in common, however, besides the Utopian transformation of reality itself, is that closure or enclave structure which all Utopias must seemingly confront one way or another. These Utopian spaces are thus on whatever scale totalities; they are symbolic of a world transformed; as such they must posit limits, boundaries between the Utopian and the non-Utopian; and it is of course with such limits and with such enclave structure that any serious critique of Utopia will begin.

The interpretation of the Utopian impulse, however, necessarily deals with fragments: it is not symbolic but allegorical: it does not correspond to a plan or to Utopian praxis, it expresses Utopian desire and invests it in a variety of unexpected and disguised, concealed, distorted ways. The Utopian impulse therefore calls for a hermeneutic: for the detective work of a decipherment and a reading of Utopian clues and traces in the landscape of the real; a theorization and interpretation of unconscious Utopian investments in realities large or small, which may in themselves be far from Utopian in their actuality. The premise here is then that the most noxious phenomena can serve as the repository and hiding place for all kinds of unsuspected wish-fulfillments and Utopian gratifications; indeed, I have often used the example of the humble aspirin as the unwitting bearer of the most extravagant longings for immortality and for the transfiguration of the body.

Now I need to clarify the “method” to which my title refers and to give a theoretical account of the rather peculiar and even perverse readings I have offered of my two illustrations. Just as I hasten to assure the reader that I do not mean to celebrate Wal-Mart, let alone to forecast the emergence of anything good and progressive from this astonishing new post-monopoly institution, so also my discussion of Paolo Virno was not to be taken as an endorsement of some putative new politics of “multitude” nor even as a practical-political discussion – something he is perfectly capable of conducting in his own voice and indeed which the final chapter of his Grammar (on which I have not touched) begins to lay out. Or to put it in a different and more accurate way: it does not matter what I think personally about the future of the Wal-Mart-type business operation or about the “politics of multitude”; I have been using both topics and both occasions to illustrate a method, about which it is now important to say that it is meant to be distinct from any of those outlined at the beginning of this paper.

The hermeneutic I have wanted to demonstrate is therefore not predictive, nor is it symptomological: it is not meant to read the outlines of the future within the present, nor is it meant to identify the operations of collective wish-fulfillment within the rather unpleasant phenomena (monopoly, overpopulation) which are its objects of examination. The latter approach – generally identified with Ernst Bloch’s work – would have to take the opinions and ideologies, the ways of life and situations, of actually existing social groups far more seriously and empirically into consideration than this exercise has done. The former line of inquiry, that of practical politics and programs, and identified here with Marx and with Lenin, would have had to assess the concrete world situation in its economic and political objectivity, as well as in the balance of ideological forces, from a strategic perspective rather than from isolated data.

I consider the Utopian “method” outlined here as neither hermeneutic nor political program, but rather something like the structural inversion of what Foucault, following Nietzsche, called the genealogy. He meant by that to distinguish his own (or perhaps even some more generalized poststructural or postmodern) “method” in sharp contrast from either empirical history or from the evolutionary narratives reconstructed by idealist historians. The genealogy was in effect to be understood as neither chronological or narrative but rather a logical operation (taking “logic” in a Hegelian sense without being Hegelian about it). Genealogy in other words was meant to lay in place the various logical preconditions for the appearance of a given phenomenon, without in any way implying that they constituted the latter’s causes, let alone the latter’s antecedents or early stages. To be sure, inasmuch as those genealogical preconditions almost always took the form of earlier historical events, misunderstanding – and the assimilation of the new construction to either of the older historical approaches (chronology, causality, narrative, idealist continuity) – was always inevitable, and could not be warded off by Raymond Roussel’s immortal anecdote of the tourist who claimed to have discovered, under glass in a provincial museum, “the skull of Voltaire as a child”.

There is so far no term as useful for the construction of the future as that of genealogy for such a construction of the past; it is certainly not to be called futurology, while utopology will never mean much, I fear. The operation itself, however, consists in a prodigious effort to change the valences on phenomena which so far exist only in our own present; and experimentally to declare positive things which are clearly negative in our own world, to affirm that dystopia is in reality utopia if examined more closely, to isolate specific features in our empirical present so as to read them as components of a different system. This is in fact what we have seen Virno doing when he borrows an enumeration of what in Heidegger are clearly enough meant to be negative and highly critical features of modern society or modern actuality, staging each of these alleged symptoms of degradation as an occasion for celebration and as a promise of what he does not – but what we may – call an alternate Utopian future.

This kind of prospective hermeneutic is a political act only in one specific sense: as a contribution to the reawakening of the imagination of possible and alternate futures, a reawakening of that historicity which our system – offering itself as the very end of history – necessarily represses and paralyzes. This is the sense in which utopology revives long dormant parts of the mind, unused organs of political and historical and social imagination which have virtually atrophied for lack of use, muscles of praxis we have long since ceased exercising, revolutionary gestures we have lost the habit of performing, even subliminally. Such a revival of futurity and of the positing of alternate futures is not itself a political program nor even a political practice: but it is hard to see how any durable or effective political action could come into being without it.

Representing Darfur: A Marxist Critique of Ideology

意识形态的马克思主义批评

Anthony O’Brien (Queens College, The City University of New York)

安东尼·奥布赖恩 纽约市立大学昆斯学院

1. 达尔福尔冲突的对抗性表现:达尔福尔冲突是一个非常热门的国际议题,而它的各种表现也是非常剧烈地互相对抗。马克思主义者认为这种不一致的表现是意识形态话语,需要尖锐的批评。马克思主义者也需要从世界工人阶级的角度客观的评判达尔福尔冲突。这样,理论问题就在于如何在国家政治组织的全球意识形态中实施这样的意识形态批评,并且如何在帝国主义内部发生对抗的时刻设想国际工人阶级的政治实践。

a)帝国主义表现:西方帝国主义意识形态认为达尔福尔冲突是苏丹政府和联盟军队与战时平民之间的冲突引起的种族屠杀。同时他们认为这也是对抗“非洲”村民的一次“阿拉伯”种族屠杀,由此需要通过联合国、北大西洋公约组织或者美国军事力量的介入。但是中国政府认为这是苏丹人民的内部冲突,应该通过政治手段而不是武力手段解决。马克思主义批评则提出支持苏丹,并且质疑中国对苏丹和非洲的外交政策中是否开始出现帝国主义的新趋势。

b)自由、非干涉主义、和平主义的表现:有些人(Mahmood MamdaniAlex De WaalGerard Prunier)认为达尔福尔冲突不是种族屠杀而是内战,从苏丹后殖民的南北内战开始,延续到1984年以来大气候危机背景下苏丹人民之间的大规模冲突。同样法国自由干涉主义者们反对军事干涉,批评将这个冲突种族主义化,呼吁停火和谈判会晤。Mamdani不仅批评美国可能实施的军事干涉,还暗示所有“外来”力量(也包括中国)应该一起用和平的手段解决问题。

c)马克思主义的表现:我认为这次冲突之中的各方力量都卷入了一场当地的和国家的资本主义者为争夺“原始积累”和剥削达尔福尔和苏丹工人阶级的权利之战,最终是指向苏丹的资源和石油。但是这次冲突是发生在旧帝国主义霸权和新兴的帝国主义集团对石油的争夺的背景下。以上所提到的各种表现在批判的同时,都忽略了这一点。

2. 意识形态的马克思主义批评。这一部分主要分析由Mamdani开始的种族主义化批评和种族屠杀的观点,但是运用马克思主义更深入地分析种族主义和国家主义掩盖了达尔福尔的阶级斗争,探讨工人阶级批评中的“种族”和“国家”两个概念。

3. 达尔福尔的各种力量的阶级分析:马克思主义批评不仅仅针对意识形态。要理解达尔福尔需要分析当地的工人阶级的成分,也包括各种有组织的团体。而且需要分析当前在达尔福尔的各种帝国主义势力,特别是美国和法国,以及中国的新兴帝国主义势力。

4. 国际主义和革命:无产阶级的可能性。达尔福尔冲突中的各种表现都理所当然地认为资本主义是解决达尔福尔大屠杀的各种政治方案中不可避免的、永恒的基本结构,都没有集中分析这个基本结构本身的问题,没有分析资本主义的社会关系本身就是帝国主义、种族主义和战争的潜在根源。我认为对此的批评研究提出了以下几个理论和实践问题:a)当工人阶级和资本阶级的冲突仍然是资本主义体系中的主要矛盾,决定形势的不是阶级斗争而是资本主义和帝国主义各种敌对势力之间的斗争。这是不是正确的?b)如果a是对的,帝国主义内部的对抗将导致另一次世界大战,美国和中国可能是主要的敌对力量。而我们工人和知识分子没有国家可言,只有一个整体的世界,我们如何在新的革命浪潮中重申自己的主动权?我建议从国际工人阶级的角度来理解这次的冲突事件,所有的工人和知识分子应该携手反抗资本主义剥削。

1. Rival Representations of the Darfur Conflict. The Darfur conflict, because of its scale of human suffering and the high stakes in this geo-strategic region of Africa, is a very hot international issue; and therefore representations of Darfur are hotly contested. Marxists regard these differing accounts of Darfur as ideological discourses in need of sharp critique; we Marxists also need to offer an objective account of Darfur from the point of view of the world’s working class. The theoretical problems here are how to conduct such a critique of ideology in the global ideological state apparatus, and how to imagine international working-class political practice in this moment of inter-imperialist rivalry.

(a) Imperialist Representations. Western imperialist ideology advances the view of Darfur as a genocide committed by the government of Sudan (GoS) and its allied janjawid militia against non-combatants in Darfur, in the course of a counter-insurgency campaign against the armed rebellion of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and various factions of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM). Upheld by the large Save Darfur movement in the U.S., this representation of Darfur also racializes it as an “Arab genocide” against “African” villagers, and leads to calls to “stop the genocide” through military intervention by UN, NATO, or U.S. forces. The Chinese government view, on the other hand, regards Darfur as an internal Sudanese matter to be resolved not militarily but politically. (I hope that Chinese colleagues at the conference will help me understand Chinese official discourse on Darfur more comprehensively.) A Marxist critique of that ideological position points out that it supports capitalist nation-states like Sudan. It also raises the question whether, as capitalism intensifies in China, Chinese foreign policy in Sudan and Africa may be moving towards a new, incipient or emergent form of imperialism. If this is the case, then Darfur represents a clash between U.S., French, and (a new, emergent) Chinese imperialism. Evidence for this view will be discussed in section 3 of the paper, in the light of neo-Marxist theories of imperialism like those of David Harvey and Giovanni Arrighi. UN representations of Darfur are also essentially imperialist; while avoiding the extreme racialization of the conflict and the term “genocide,” UN discourse endorses armed intervention in the guise of “peace-keeepers,” thereby maintaining the local and global capitalist world-order.

(b) Liberal, Non-interventionist, Pacifist Representations. The writings of Mahmood Mamdani, Alex De Waal, Gérard Prunier and others in this vein view Darfur not as a genocide (though, in Mamdani’s words, “it could become” a genocide), but as a civil war, spilling over from the long postcolonial North-South civil war in Sudan, and continuing the endemic Sudanese conflict between center and periphery, in the context of the climate crisis since 1984 that pits pastoralists against agriculturalists. Another example of this view is the critique of French liberal interventionism in Darfur (Bernard Kouchner, Bernard-Henri Lévy) by Philip Cunliffe and others. These writers express the dominant scholarly view of Darfur in African Studies. They criticize the media racialization of the conflict, oppose military intervention, and call for a ceasefire and talks aimed at peace-building, power-sharing, and resource-sharing. Mamdani’s critique of liberal or humanitarian interventionism also criticizes Western imperialism and links possible U.S military intervention in Darfur to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is unclear how this representation of Darfur regards the Chinese presence in Sudan—it does NOT endorse the China-bashing of the Save Darfur movement—but implicit in it is the notion that all “external” actors in Sudan, obviously including China, should collaborate in the peace-building process. Mamdani is skeptical of all external actors in African conflicts, basing his pacifist hopes on local African actors primarily.

(c) A Marxist Representation. In my view, based on a class analysis of the forces on the ground (to the limited extent that we have reliable information), all sides in the Darfur civil war and counter-insurgency, GoS, JEM, and SLM alike, are engaged in a battle between rival local and national capitalists for the rights to “primitive accumulation” and exploitation of Darfuri and Sudanese workers. This intra-capitalist battle in Darfur and Sudan generally is ultimately about the major Sudanese resource, oil. But it takes place in the context of rivalry over oil among the old hegemonic imperialisms (U.S., EU, Japan) and new, emergent imperialist blocs such as Russia, China, and India. Racist and nationalist ideologies among the contending Sudanese capitalists are therefore entangled with imperialist ideologies of all sorts, and obscure the fact that Darfur is a class conflict. Liberal pacifists like Mamdani and De Waal, while criticizing imperialist intervention and racializing ideology, fail to criticize local and national Sudanese capitalists and their exploitation of workers; instead, they call for peace and power-sharing among these capitalist factions, leaving workers to continue being exploited under a capitalist peace. A Marxist view, in contrast, calls on workers in Darfur and Sudan of every ethnicity, tribe, clan, religion, region, and occupation, combatants and non-combatants alike, to take no side in these battles among capitalists, but instead to organize themselves as a class and a party against all capitalists. It calls for international working-class solidarity with workers suffering under capitalism and imperialism in Darfur and Sudan. This difficult political practice must be imagined as possible if workers are ever to regain the initiative in the local and global class struggle, and if the proud history of proletarian internationalism against all imperialisms is ever to re-emerge.

2. Marxist Critique of Ideology. This section focuses on the critique begun by Mamdani of racialization and the claim of genocide, but carries it further into a Marxist critique of the use of racism and nationalism to obscure the class struggle in Darfur, and a working-class critique of the very concepts of “race” and “nation.” Critical Race Theory and modern critiques of “nation-ness” beginning with Benedict Anderson’s post-Marxist book Imagined Communities are influential theories that compete with Marxism on these concepts. Marxists must also consider some theoretical problems in understanding how the class conflict in Darfur is mediated through the many layers of what Althusser called the “ideological state apparatus,” on a global scale: journalism, scholarship, diplomacy, the culture industry, law, even sports (the Beijing Olympics). I ask the audience here to elaborate for me how Darfur is mediated in the Chinese ideological state apparatus, in both official and unofficial discourse.

3. Class Analysis of Forces in Darfur. Marxist critique cannot aim at ideology alone, although as intellectuals this is a primary responsibility we have, to practice “the hermeneutics of suspicion” and see how the class struggle is masked by official discourse. Understanding Darfur also requires class analysis of the composition of the working class there, as well as of organized forces like the government of Sudan (GoS) and the insurgent JEM and SLM groupings. Secondly, it requires analysis of the current imperialist forces at play in Darfur. The world-wide inter-imperialist rivalry over oil—its supply, profits, and control—is key here, particularly the role of U.S. and French imperialism in Sudan and Africa, and also the evidence for calling the growing Chinese economic, political and military presence in Sudan and Africa a new imperialism, based on the exploitative investment of surplus capital in African resources, labor, and markets, and the consolidation of political and military alliances with African capitalist regimes like those in the three largest African oil states, Angola, Nigeria, and Sudan.

4. Internationalism and Revolution: Proletarian Possibilities. The paper concludes by asking: is Darfur an instance of Fukuyama’s “end of history,” a picture of what we get when there is no further resistance to the global triumph of capitalism? It would certainly seem so. All the representations of Darfur criticized here take capitalism for granted as the unending and inevitable framework of any political solutions to the mass slaughter in Darfur. None of them focus on the frame itself as the problem, on capitalist social relations as themselves the underlying cause of imperialism, racism, and war. In that sense even the sharpest critique of a progressive scholar like Mamdani ends up converging with the neoconservative nonsense of Fukuyama. But could Darfur summon us instead to proletarian possibilities, to a revival of international solidarity and revolutionary anticapitalism in every country, and in that way become not an end but a beginning of history? Is Mao’s magnificent prediction still true, that “dark night will have its end”? Is it still true, as Marx said, that workers have no country, that as workers our country is the whole world? If so, the Marxist critique of ideology in the representation of Darfur should be linked to the most profound theoretical and practical questions facing workers under capitalism in every country of the world today. Those are, in my view: (a) is it not true that, while the contradiction between the working class and the capitalists who exploit our labor power remains the primary contradiction in the capitalist system that now governs the entire world, what determines events now is not that class struggle but rather the struggle between rival blocs of capitalists and imperialists? And (b), if (a) is true, and what determines events now is an inter-imperialist rivalry that is rushing us towards another world war in which the U.S. and China may well be the primary adversaries, how can we workers and intellectuals who have no country but the whole world—e.g., workers and intellectuals in both the U.S. and China—re-assert our initiative in a new revolutionary surge? My suggestion is that international working-class understanding and action on the Darfur crisis could be one step on the path to that necessary renewal. It is a step that Chinese, African, U.S., and European workers and intellectuals who oppose capitalist exploitation wherever it exists need to take together.

The Politics of Literary Study in the United States: Eight Propositions

美国文学研究中的政治:八个主张

Barbara Foley ( Rutgers University )

芭芭拉·弗雷 美国新泽西州罗特格斯大学

提要:最近三十年,美国的美国文学研究中最突出的倾向是美国文学的解经典化,也就是去除文学价值的传统观念,去除文学历史演变的陈旧叙述,用更有包容性和更民主的分析框架来替代它们。我发言的意图是以一种马克思主义的视角来辩证地评价这种倾向的优势与缺陷。

The most significant trend in U.S. literary study in the United States in the past 30 years has been the decanonization of American literature—that is, the dismantling of traditional notions of literary value and traditional narratives of literary-historical development and the replacement of these with more inclusive and democratic frames of analysis.

The purpose of my talk is dialectically to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this trend from a Marxist standpoint. My discussion consists of eight major propositions, both descriptive and analytical.

(1)The decanonization trend has its roots in the anti-authoritarian social movements of the 1960s and 1970s: for Civil Rights and Black Power; against the Vietnam War and US imperialism; second-wave feminism. These social movements gave rise to women’s and gender studies; African-American and other ethnic studies (even “whiteness” studies); working-class studies; and post-colonial studies. At first marginalized, these new areas of inquiry have gradually reshaped “mainstream” U.S. literary history, placing Frederick Douglass alongside Ralph Waldo Emerson, Zora Neale Hurston alongside William Faulkner, Leslie Marmon Silko alongside Philip Roth.

(2) Also involved in this trend has been a challenge to the New Critical and myth-and-symbol formalism inherited from the period of the Cold War. Standards of literary value that elevated paradox, ambiguity, irony, and the transcendence of history were seen as ideological manifestations of the anticommunist attack on all socially and politically committed writing. As aesthetics was seen to be intrinsically politicized, traditional notions of literary “greatness” and “genius” were questioned. Literature was resituated in social context, evaluated not only for its intrinsic formal qualities but also for its effects upon readers. This two-pronged attack upon traditional historical and aesthetic approaches to literature, and the reaction the attack generated, resulted in the so-called “culture wars” of the late 1980s and 1990s.

(3) Despite the undeniably progressive features of the decanonization movement, and its appeal to many egalitarian-minded scholars and teachers, in a number of ways this movement has proven readily assimilable to—and in fact supportive of—the needs of capital in the current period. We therefore need to explore the paradox that a literary and cultural program presumably aiming to contest stratification and inequality has—however inadvertently—ended up as part of what Louis Althusser would call the “ideological state apparatus” of a profoundly hierarchical and oppressive social order.

(4)The focus upon “identity” in much recent criticism has precluded a structural analysis of capitalist society and—especially under the rubric of multiculturalism—fostered a profoundly mistaken view of the U.S. as a site of pluralist democracy. The “multi-” in “multiculturalism” leads to metaphorical view of U.S. culture as a “salad,” a “patchwork quilt,” an “orchestra” to which each group makes its distinct “contribution.” While presumably inclusive, this insistence upon each group’s distinctness ironically can reproduce the very racism that originally supplied the basis for white supremacist exclusion. The “culturalism” in “multiculturalism” fosters the notion that culture is the zone of emancipation. We are thus faced with the hypocritical disparity between an “official” culture featuring an inclusive rainbow and the increasing systemic racism of US society in relation to wealth, health care, and access to education. The substitution of “gender” for “sex,” moreover, has done nothing to alter the 76 cents women earn for every dollar earned by men: a pluralist rhetoric alert to the social construction of identities has hardly abolished the “gendered” and “raced” nature of employment.

(5)The questioning of “identity” and “identity politics” in post-structuralist- and deconstructive-influenced theory does not remedy this problem. To urge “hybridity” instead of gendered or raced “essence,” to propose that the “self” is a fiction, a creation of “discourse,” substitutes epistemological anti-foundationalism for social liberation. While the linguistic turn in theory over the past thirty years has usefully pointed up the power relations embedded in binary oppositions and myths of origin, the insistence that all is “discourse,” and there is no such thing as “ideology,” removes the basis upon which it can be argued that one analytical paradigm is more or less adequate to reality than another. The anti-foundationalist wing of the decanonization movement thus largely divests itself of the power of critique and is in practice a form of rewarmed liberal pluralism.

(6)We come now to the question of class. The new field of “working-class studies” has sought to place a positive value on the lives and modes of expression of the U.S. proletariat, past and present; it has encouraged study of the literary radicalism accompanying the U.S. communist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, a body of texts dismissed as crude propaganda during the Cold War. But working-class studies is hardly free of anticommunism; attacks on Marxism as “class reductionism” abound in papers given at working-class studies conferences. The elevation of the local, the dispersed, and the contingent, and the commonly expressed view of “totality” as leading to (often “Stalinist”) “totalitarianism,” indicates the extent to which anticommunism has simply gone into the ideological groundwater of much literary study in the United States. Moreover, working-class studies has reduced class to an identity, or subject position. Working-class-ness is not something to be abolished; it is instead to be valorized and celebrated. Working-class studies thus becomes complicit with capitalist class rule.

(7) The supposed “intersection” of gender, race and class supplies the analytical model most commonly used in the various wings of the decanonization movement to describe the overlap of multiple identities (or discourses about identity) in literary texts. Despite—or perhaps because of—its appeal to liberal pluralism, the intersectionality model is useless, for it obscures the very relationships it would clarify. From a Marxist standpoint, it is the structured totality of capitalist social relations that encloses and explains the workings of gender and race as well as class. This does not mean that gender and/or race are “reducible” to class, or to deny that many experiences represented in literature—or standpoints from which texts are composed—emphasize the centrality of being black, being female, being gay (or being white, male, straight, or for that matter working-class). But the various forms of inequality and oppression in current U.S. society are all sustained and reproduced, if in different ways, by the drive toward capital accumulation. The intersectionality model precludes deep-structural causal analysis, supplying instead a “mapping” that remains on the surface.

(8) I have offered some harsh criticisms of the decanonization movement, which purports to be the most progressive direction in current U.S. literary study. What I have been sketching are, essentially, the deficiencies of liberalism: in its antipathy to Marxism and its promotion of culturalism and pluralism, liberalism supports capitalism as much as does conservatism. (In fact, given the needs of capital in the era of so-called “globalization,” liberalism is arguably the more effective official cultural discourse, even as U.S. imperialism uses an iron fist in furthering its interests in many parts of the world.) But any serious Marxist criticism has to contain self-criticism as well. I myself have done extensive research into U.S. literary radicalism during the period between the wars, and it is clear to me that literary and cultural movements have been most incisively anti-capitalist, most revolutionary, when they have been sustained by leftist political movements attempting to organize the working class and its allies for far-reaching social transformation. Even though the need for the working class to free itself from the capitalist yoke remains urgent, for a complex set of reasons—the topic of another talk entirely!—the left movement in the United States (indeed just about everywhere in the world) is currently quite weak. It must be the goal of Marxists—including Marxist literary theorists—to explore the reasons for this weakness, past and present, in order to rebuild a revolutionary movement than can effectively challenge capitalism, on both cultural and political grounds.

Author”/ “Pirate”: Literary Theory in Global Commerce in Ideas

“原作者”/“侵犯著作权者”:全球观念商业视阈中的文学理论

Martha Woodmansee (Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio)

玛莎·伍德曼西 美国俄亥俄州克里夫兰市 华盛顿天主教大学

提要:“原作者”一直备受文学理论家的关注,也是著作权法中的核心概念,在18世纪和19世纪早期欧洲的跨学科理论研究背景下获得其法律意义,但此后在文学理论和法律理论间的跨学科对话始终未能有效地展开。有鉴于此,本文作者认为我们应重新展开对于“原作者”本质的跨学科、跨文化反思。由于著作权法中对于“原作者”本质过时的、欧洲中心主义的理解,著作权法正日益失去其效力。从文学理论家的角度看,文学作品具有互文性,是集体合作的产物,因此我们不应该认为著作权法完全是法律专家和政策制定者的职责,而应该和他们展开积极的对话,共同致力于著作权法的不断完善。

1. Authorship is one of our central interests as literary scholars. It is an interest we share with a growing number of lawyers and legal scholars specializing in copyright, for “authorship” lies at the very center of this body of law. It is the term of art for the diverse modes of creative production that it is the function of copyright to promote. Copyright law covers painting, sculpture, music, film, literature -- the whole spectrum of literary works from poems, plays, and novels to the kind of scholarly and scientific writing we do, and even computer software programs. As soon as we give some tangible expression to an idea the law considers this a work of authorship and protects it from unauthorized copying for the author’s life plus 70 years.

2. “Authorship” acquired its legal meaning in the rich interdisciplinary -- more precisely, predisciplinary – theoretical milieu of 18th and early 19th century Europe. But as the disciplines specialized, conversation among them, and thus between literary and legal theory, went silent. So, for over a century, these two disciplines have been grappling more or less independently with the same body of ideas. My aim today is to revive interdisciplinary reflection on the nature of authorship and to urge the pressing need for it to become more cross-cultural. This is important, I think, because the law of copyright is increasingly misfiring – it is privatizing, i.e., distributing property in ideas, information, and knowledge in ways that we cannot accept as fair or rational. It can do this, I submit, because of the antiquated and eurocentric understanding of authorship at its center.

3. One may lay legal claim to ownership of ideas only insofar as one is an “author.” What is an author? In the usage that has been absorbed into the law an “author” is the individual responsible for the production of a unique “original” work. Its originality warrants the work’s legal protection both in Anglo-American copyright and in European author’s rights. Under pressure from the U.S. and the E.U., this body of law is being adopted by nations around the world to create a uniform legal infrastucture for global trade in ideas, information, knowledge.

4. While the law’s way of defining authorship—i.e., as the production of a unique “original” work -- seems straightforward and unproblematic to most lawyers and legal scholars, in literary studies in the wake of structuralism and post structuralism we view our creative work in more “intertextual” terms –we view it as more dependent on the work of others than such a definition suggests. We may work with stone, in oils on canvas, with pen and paper, or pixels -- whatever our medium of preference, we invariably draw on the work of others in our creative activities, if not contemporaries working in close proximity, then those working at some temporal remove, whom we may or may not acknowledge as “influences.” In other words, our creative work is largely derivative, it is in an important sense collective, corporate, and collaborative.

5. For most of human history this derivative aspect of new work was believed to contribute to, if not virtually to constitute the work’s value. Writers, like other artisans, considered their task to lie in the re-working of traditional materials according to principles and techniques preserved and handed down to them in rhetoric and poetics. It was only in the course of the eighteenth century, and then chiefly in Western Europe, that an alternative vision of creative production focusing on the endowments and accomplishments of the individual genius emerged. In a sharp departure from the self-understanding of writers of previous generations, authors in the new “Romantic” mode began to view their task to lie in innovation – to lie in breaking with inherited tradition to create something utterly new, unique, in a word, “original.” Their heroic vision caught on and it mystified the creative process, obscuring the reliance of these writers on the work of others.

6. If time permitted, I would examine with you some of the texts in which 19th century European authors --from Herder and Goethe in Germany, to Wordsworth and Coleridge in England, and Victor Hugo in France – propounded this individualistic new vision of creative activity. (I’ve brought copies of one such text along, which I can distribute: Wordsworth’s poem, “Daffodils,” one of the most famous English poems if only because in the 19th and 20th centuries pretty much every school child throughout the British empire was required to commit it to memory.) But in the interest of time I will fast-forward to show you very briefly how their vision of authorship as a solitary originary activity operates in copyright.

7. In a nutshell, the author construct at the center of copyright is at once too broad and too narrow: it both a) impedes the kinds of re-working of existing texts that we know to be essential to the creation of new knowledge and b) permits re-uses that most of us would consider objectionable. Two sets of images will illustrate. The first set is from the U.S. court case of Rogers v. Koons (1992) and the second from the Australian case of Bulun Bulun v. R & T Textiles (1998).

8. In the first set of images you see, first, a black and white photo, commissioned by the owners of a large litter of shepherd puppies, which the photographer Art Rogers later commissioned to a greeting card company for reproduction on a postcard. In the second image is a life-size polychrome sculpture by the American appropriation artist Jeff Koons that was designed to criticize the culture evoked by the Rogers photo. By transforming the family portrait into a three-dimensional Disney-like cartoon tableaux – note the slick modeling and the added colors and little flowers -- Koons aimed to expose, to make us see the portrait’s banality. His sculpture is a scathing critique of the banality of contemporary life in the U.S. Americans value this kind of critique -- it is one of the freedoms of speech guaranteed by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, when Rogers sued Koons for copyright infringement Koons lost the lawsuit, and he had to destroy this sculpture and pay heavy damages. Why? To the court the sculpture was a flagrant “piracy”: instead of investing the energy and imagination to create something new and original Koons had taken the easy way out and simply copied Rogers’ photo.

9. This case is an instance, an extreme instance, to be sure, of the trend in copyright today to curtail our right (which is also a necessity!) to dip into and select from existing texts and meanings to create new texts and meanings -- without first seeking permission from and (often) paying a licensing fee to the text’s “owner.” The trend is being driven by corporations -- by entertainment giants like Walt Disney and computer software giants like Microsoft – seeking to get as big a bang as possible for their buck in an increasingly global economy.

10. Even as our author-fixated copyright system is impeding creative re-uses of our cultural texts that we deem essential, I said that it simultaneously exposes another body of texts to re-uses that seem exploitative and objectionable. This may be seen by turning to the second set of images that I mentioned from the Australian case of Bulun Bulun v. R & T Textiles. The textile company that re-used an Australian Aboriginal tribe’s sacred design to produce upscale T-shirts did not need to worry about being sued for copyright infringement. An individual, Bulun Bulun, painted the design, to be sure, but he did so at the behest of his tribe in strict accordance with the rules and techniques preserved and handed down to him in tribal custom. His people thus view the painting as a communally authored object that belongs to them collectively. Lacking an author in the romantic sense – i.e., lacking an individual originator – the painting is simply invisible to copyright law. As such, it is available for any and all re-uses, even those as insulting to the tribe as T-shirts.

11. I’ve covered a lot of ground – in none of the detail my topic requires, or deserves. What I hope nevertheless to have conveyed to you is its significance – something of the mischief copyright is doing right now. I’ve suggested that an antiquated eurocentric understanding of the nature of creative production, or “authorship,” at the center of this body of law bears important responsibility for this mischief. It follows, as I see it, that literary theorists need to take note. Copyright is furnishing the legal infrastructure of our rapidly globalizing information economy. As experts on creative activity, who understand that it is intertextual – i.e., that it is essentially collective and collaborative -- we should not leave copyright to legal experts and policy makers but should rather join in the conversation that is working to reshape this body of law -- for better or for worse. China’s long, rich history of communal ownership of ideas puts those attending this conference in a position to make an important contribution to this conversation.

T. S. Eliot, Asia and Newly Found Evidence

艾略特, 亚洲和新发现的证据

By Tatsushi Narita (Visiting Fellow, Harvard University; Professor Emeritus, Nagoya City University)

成田興史 哈佛大学访问学者;日本名古屋市立大学名誉教授

1.新找到的证据

2.爱略特家族与路易斯安娜博览会的关系

3.爱略特与菲律宾的伊哥洛特人

4.爱略特与其创作于1905年的短篇小说《当国王的人》(The Man Who was King

假设之一:青年爱略特于1905年创作的短篇小说《当国王的人》(The Man Who was King)主要讲述非西方文化在太平洋岛屿上的兴盛,值得注意的是,在看似“原始的”社会里自治原则被刻画成是十分有效的。假设之二:普遍认为爱略特在哈佛大学期间开始关注人类学问题,但是早在那之前他就开始认真思考文化他者问题。1904年世界博览会在圣路易斯举办,爱略特参观了“原始的” 伊哥洛特人村落等地。正如他在这部短篇小说中所表现的那样,爱略特着重探讨了当时颇受关注的起源于菲律宾群岛问题的话题——“白人的负担”。该短篇小说集中探讨了菲律宾群岛是否应获得自主和自治权的问题。

5.由家庭环境推演出来的艾略特和文化他者之间的早期联系

6.新的假设:艾略特对文化他者思想的内在化

(1) 如何理解现实:多年后,当艾略特思考诗歌特征的时候,此前对伊哥洛特人村落的考察引发他思考“土著人是如何思考和舞蹈的?”这一问题。这个话题是形成他自己的理论的基础。⑵文化他者思想的内在化:一个独特的结论由此产生:艺术家和野蛮人在对现实的理解上有共同之处。遭遇文化他者问题,艾略特得以更加深刻地理解他此前不得不面对的问题,并将这种深化的理解内化于自己的观点。

NEWLY LOCATED EVIDENCE

Henry Ware Eliot Scrapbooks housed by the Missouri Historical Museum, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

New evidence preserved in the Museum located, evidence called “Louisiana Purchase Exposition: Stockholder’s Coupon Ticket,” a special ticket issued by the Exposition Company to Thomas Stearns Eliot. Inside the front cover we find his photograph attached; at the bottom of the back cover the signature “Thos. S. Eliot.” While the number of coupons originally provided were fifty, there is only one ticket as is seen today.

Another copy of the Stockholder’s Coupon Ticket issued to Henry Ware Eliot, TSE’s father.

THE ELIOT FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN THE LOUSIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION (LPE)

Photograph of William Greenleaf Eliot, TSE’s grandfather exhibited at the Palace of Education

Newly published book by TSE’s mother, on exhibit at the Palace of Education

Washington University Exhibits

Manual Training School Exhibits

Charlotte Eliot and her Proposal for Young Women

LPE Company rented the whole campus of Washington University’s new campus for purposes of using it as their Headquarters and others. Henry Ware Eliot, serving on the Board of Directors, Washington University

(Cf. Mississippi Valley Sanitary Fair organized by William Greenleaf Eliot)

A plaque constructed on the new campus for the memory of William Greenleaf Eliot, founder of Washington University

An unobstructed view from the spot about 100 years ago

TSE AND IGOROT PEOPLE, THE PHILIPPINES

Map of the Philippine Archipelago

The Igorot hill tribes of the Philippines, the Benguets, Ifugao, Bontocs, Apayaos and Kalingas

Figure: The Philippine Exposition (a pamphlet), Henry’s Scrapbook item

A virtual transpacific crossings to the Walled City of Manila and then further north to the Igorot people region

Map of the Philippine Exposition, a special exposition co-hosted with the LPE

Figure: “Igorot Village: Headhunters of the Philippines” (a pamphlet)

Figure: Souvenir: Igorot Village (a pamphlet), Henry’s Scrapbook item

Figure: A page of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, March 27, 1905

Figure: “The Adoration of the Igorrote” (a newspaper clipping), Henry’s Scrapbook item

TSE AND “THE MAN WHO WAS KING” (1905)

The short story “The Man Who Was King”

In 1905 the young Eliot wrote "The Man Who Was King." Set in Polynesia, it depicts an interaction of Matahiva islanders and an intruder Magruder. Islanders at first assume Magruder as a god-send and inaugurated him as king. However, because of Magruder's incompetence not only as a king but as a human being, islanders negate the assumption they had initially made and come to expel him. Of particular significance is that Polynesians are represented as maintaining the health of society. In contrast, Magruder is depicted as far removed from western civility and civilization.

Hypothesis 1: Composition of “The Man Who Was King”

“The Man Who Was King” is concerned with the extent to which a non-Western culture which flourished on a Pacific island did enjoy cultural health of its own. Significantly, in the seemingly “primitive” society the principle of self-government is portrayed as being fully operational. In contract, the story exposes the limitations of Magruder and by extension what he symbolizes, civilization he sands for.

Hypothesis 2: TSE on Self-Rule

It has been widely established that Eliot formed anthropological concern during his Harvard years. However, long before the Harvard period Eliot had had a serious confrontation with Cultural Others in St. Louis.

When, in 1904, the World’s Fair came to St. Louis, he visited “primitive” Igorot Village and others. And, as is evidenced by “The Man Who Was King,” he seriously addressed himself to the then sensational topic “The White Man’s Burden,” a topic arising out of the Philippine problem.

The short story focuses attention on the Philippine issue whether the Philippine should be given the immediate chance of self-determination and self-governance or not.

EARLIEST CONNECTIONS BETWEEN TSE AND CULTURAL OTHERS DEDUCED FROM FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES

Figure: “You are a Darned Nuisance” (Henry’s Scrapbook item)

Henry’s interest in the Philippine issues: Uncle Sam as an upperhand civilizing force criticized.

Figure: “I Once Acted Like That” (Henry’s Scrapbook item)

Henry’s interest in the Philippine issues: Advice given by an Indian to the Filipino who is taking arms, dashing to the war.

Figure: “German Idea of ‘Native Freedom’” (Henry’s Scrapbook item)

Henry criticizing the German idea of ‘Native Freedom’

Figure: “Many Parodys [sic.] on The White Man’s Burden” (source: TSE’s Fireside)

TSE’s precocious interest in the Philippines issues at age ten.

Figure: Igorot People’s Gangsa Dance

Cf. “Next came the two men with the litter and after that a little mob of men beating bhghons (a cross between tin pan and gong) and chanting monotonously” (emphasis mine).”

Figure: Igorot People’s Gangsa Dance

Cf. “Poetry begins, I dare say, with a savage beating a drum in a jungle” (TSE in 1933). TSE and his development of idea of poetry by his internalization of the way how natives think and dance.

A NEW HYPOTHESIS

・“The Man Who Was King”:

Matahiva islanders as Cultural Others for TSE

Philippine people as Cultural Others for TSE

A New Hypothesis: TSE and his internalization of the mind of Cultural Others:

(1)How to Grasp Reality: Years later, when TSE pondered much about the nature of poetry, “how natives think and dance,” a topic arising out of his Igorot Village explorations was a basis on which to formulate a theory of his own.

Cf. “The artist, I believe, is more primitive, as well as more civilized, than his contemporaries, his experience is deeper than civilization, and he only uses the phenomenon of civilization in expressing it. Primitive instincts and the acquired habits of ages are confounded in the ordinary man” (T. S. Eliot, “Tarr,” Egoist, 5, Sept. 1918, p. 106 (emphasis mine).

(2) Internalization of the mind of Cultural Others:

A unique conclusion emerged that an artist and a savage share the common point in the comprehension of reality.

The confrontation with cultural others provided TSE with an important occasion when he deepened and internalized understanding of what he had to first confront with. For TSE, Matahiva islanders and Philippine people represented Asian Cultural Others.

文化研究中的阶级轨迹 陆扬 复旦大学中文系

提要:阶级和种族、性别一样,是文化研究的三大母题之一。文化研究伯明翰传统如威廉斯、E. P. 汤普森等人,历来关注阶级的分析。马克思曾经预言资本主义必将在阶级斗争中崩溃,为发达国家的产业工人所埋葬。但是时至今日,马克思的阶级预言并没有实现。资本主义面接自身的重重危机应对有方,正在有条不紊图谋新的发展,目前还看不出日薄西山的迹象。相反,工人阶级本身的存在形态,反倒愈益变得复杂迷离起来。在今天全球化的后工业社会里,阶级对立消失了吗?或者说,它是以怎样的新的形式表现出来?这是文化研究关注的一个焦点。

非文本诗学研究个案分析 高小康 中山大学文学院

禅的思维特征及其表达方式 邱紫华 华中师范大学文学院

提要:本文分两个部分。首先,指出了禅的思维特征是意会思维。禅所主张的“不立文字、教外别传”的宗旨是意会思维形式的经典表达;本文从禅的意会思维的体感性,体验性,不可言传而难以把握,以及经验层面上的可操作性、可靠性等四个方面,揭示了禅的意会认识的特点。其次,本文分析了禅的思维中所蕴含的辩证法、悖论、相对主义等思维特征,证明了禅的意会思维同审美思维有密切的联系。

审美意识形态辨 郑伟 北京师范大学文学院

提要:从马克思、恩格斯对“意识形态”概念的使用来看,意识形态主要不是一个“否定性”的概念,而且也不是所谓的“综合思想体系”,因此“审美意识形态”这一命题是能够成立的,是符合马克思主义基本文学观念的。“审美意识形态”这一理论目前研究得还不够,主要是审美与意识形态的融合问题以及意识形态在文学作品中的存在方式问题的研究都有待加强,西方马克思主义的距离说以及意识形态生产的理论可以提供很好的理论借鉴。

文学本质论批判 王进 广州大学人文学院中文系

提要:文学本质问题是一种文学理论认知体系的逻辑起点,它决定了文学思维展开的方式与效能。中国当代文学理论长期纠缠于审美意识形态论,并被作为文艺学第一原理写进了大学的文艺学教科书。本文认为这是一个错误的理论,它表现在三个方面:一是文学理解的美学化问题,其实质是用哲学观念代替了文学问题的思考;二是意识形态学说的普泛化问题,其实质是用国家意识形态的统制和高压扭曲了文学思想;三是“审美”和“意识形态论”又内在地包含了“现代性”的题中应有之意,这样就把文学与时俱进地绑在了唯新是尚的进化论快车上。本文主张文艺学作为真正的文学问题的探讨应当是非审美的、非意识形态的和非现代性的,中国新的文艺学原理应当是对人类文学智慧的全面吸收,是对中西古今文学理解包括马克思主义的全面打通。而不应当是对经典作家只言片语的浅薄发挥。在这个意义上,我们对文学的重新定义是:文学是展示人类个体生命意识自由表达的文化想象形态和文本创造形态。

Abstract: The question of the essence of literature constitutes the logical basis of any theoretic and cognitive system of literature, which determines the way and function of literary thinking. The contemporary literary theory of China has long been obsessed with the Theory of Aesthetic Ideology, which has been incorporated into the college textbook as the primary principle the theory of literature and art. However, there are three mistakes in this theory. First, it approaches literature in an aesthetic way, which in itself replaces the thinking over literature with philosophic concepts. Second, it universalizes the theory of ideology, which virtually distorts literary thinking with the control and pressure of the state ideology. Third, both the theory of “aestheticism” and “ideology” have internalized the essential spirit of “Modernism”, binding literature with the express bus of Evolutionism which gives novelty the greatest priority. It is argued that the real exploration of literary issues should be non-aesthetic, non-ideological and non-modernistic. The theory of literature and art in China should absorb all the literary wisdom of human beings and thread through the understanding of literature at all times and in all countries, not just develop the piecemeal words of some classic writers superficially. In this sense, we may get a new definition of literature, that is, the cultural imaginative as well as textual creative form exhibiting the human beings’ individual sense of life and free expression.

文学理论发展与学术认同机制 李健 南京大学文化艺术教育中心

提要:从新时期到新世纪,中国的文学理论经历了充满机遇和挑战的发展之路。30年来,对西方话语的引进与改造、对传统文论的继承与创新、对当代现实的关切与回应,构成了中国文学理论自我发展的三重历史语境。以此为依据,中国文学理论在其发展过程中不断遭遇到学术资源的认同与再生问题。在一定意义上,文学理论的发展,正是以学术场中的认同机制为保障的。首先,学术认同的对话机制是文学理论走出自我封闭世界的基本前提。只有自觉地与西方对话、与传统对话、与现实对话,文学理论才有可能接触、吸收、消化新鲜血液,并生发出适应时代发展的创新理论。其次,学术认同的转换机制是文学理论自我发展的必要手段。我们可以看到,不同语境中的学术资源,其话语转换是一个复杂的动态过程。在这个过程中,需要审慎地面对学术资源如何“翻译”、怎样“误读”乃至不断“滥用”等问题。再次,学术认同的反思机制是文学理论得以良性发展的重要保障。这种反思来自两个方面:一方面,我们要对自身的理论需求有准确的认识,不能将学术认同简单等同为学术观念或方法的“表演秀”;另一方面,还需要对我们与之对话、力图转换的理论资源进行必要的反思,只有真正理解了这些资源的理论内涵,才能保证这种认同是行之有效的。最后,学术认同的再生机制则是文学理论自我发展的目标所在。任何理论的发展都同时是一个理论再生的过程,文学理论也不例外。中国文学理论最近三十年的发展历程一再说明,缺乏理论再生功能、无法生成适应时代发展的创新理论的学术研究,是没有生命力的。总之,中国文学理论的未来发展,仍然需要面对三重基本的历史语境,确保学术认同机制的顺畅运转,则是我们进一步推进其良性发展的必然要求。

AbstractFrom the New Era to the New Century, Chinese literary theory has developed with challenges and opportunities. In the past 30 years, by introducing and adapting western discourses, inheriting and innovating traditional literary theory, and focusing on and reacting to contemporary reality, it has advanced in the triple historical contexts. Due to this, Chinese literary theory has continuously encountered the issues of identity and regeneration of academic resources. In a certain sense, the development of literary theory is based on the system of identity in academic field. First, the dialogic system of academic identity is essential for literary theory to break away from a self-sealed world. Only through a conscious dialogue with the West, tradition and reality, literary theory may approach, absorb and integrate new ideas and generate creatively theories adapted to contemporary reality. Second, the transformative system of academic identity is a necessary means for the development of literary theory. As we know, the discursive transformation of academic resources in different contexts is a complicated and dynamic process, in which an important issue should be focused, that is, how academic resources are translated, misread and misused. Third, the reflexive system of academic identity is to ensure a benign development of literary theory. The reflection is on the following two aspects: on one hand, we should have an appropriate recognition of our theoretical needs and avoid taking academic identity as “a performative show” of academic ideas or methods; on the other hand, we should reflect on the theoretical resources we intend to make dialogue with and transform, as the identification can be ensured only with a true understanding of the resources. Finally, the regenerating system of academic identity is the aim of the development of literary theory. It is obvious that the development of a theory is always a process of theoretical regeneration. Literary theory is not an exception. The development of Chinese literary theory in the past 30 years does show that academic research without theoretical regeneration or adaptation to the age is lifeless. Therefore, it is necessary to face the triple historical contexts, to ensure the smooth operation of the system of academic identity in order to enhance the benign development of Chinese literary theory.

时代思想气象与文艺学研究问题 程勇 鲁东大学汉语言文学院

提要:本文认为,与20世纪90年代以来中国思想气象孱弱无力、缺乏刚健精神相应,中国的文艺学研究也存在着思想的缺失和学术的萎缩。有各种各样层出不穷的知识生产,却少见对时代问题有深刻洞察力的文艺学思想创造。文艺学研究的整体性的飘浮状况无法承担其应尽使命,既没有给世界贡献与众不同的理论、思想和学术,也无法确立一种与时代核心价值相适应的雄健正大的审美气象。这与研究主体思想取境偏低与思想方法偏失有深刻关联,思想取境偏低体现为问题意识淡漠、历史意识匮乏、价值关怀虚化,思想方法上的偏失则主要体现为重演绎、轻归纳;重技术、轻思想;重本质、轻现象。文章提出,中国文艺学必须思想,而且思想必须严肃,这首先是因为中国需要在世界上发出自己的声音,其次是因为当下中国的精神生活出了问题。严肃的文艺学思想创造必须以中国为根基,以当下中国精神生活为轴心,必须坚持价值优先原则,唯此才能为重建中国的思想世界做出自己的贡献,无愧于“实现中华民族伟大复兴”的时代要求。

Abstract: This paper think that corresponding with the weak and incompetent thinking atmosphere of China from the nineties of the 20th century, the study of literary theory also has deficiency of thought and contraction of learning. There are various knowledge production of literary theory which are emerging in an endless stream, but lack of the creation of thought which has deep insight to the problems of the times. The floating situation of the study as a whole can not make it take on heavy responsibilities, neither make a different contribution of theory, thought and learning to the world, nor establish a vigorous and justifiable aesthetic atmosphere which conform to the core values of the times. All theses questions relate to two aspects of researcher, the first is their mental choice of thinking state is on the low side, the second is their thinking methods has some deviations and errors. The former may be viewed from three aspects, they are nonchalance of sense of questioning, deficiency of sense of history and emptiness of value solicitude. The latter may be viewed from three aspects, which attach importance to deduction, technique and essence than induction, thought and phenomena. We advance that the study of literary theory of China must think, and thought must be solemn. Why does this? Firstly, China needs to give her voice in the world. Secondly, there are many problems existing in contemporary Chinese spiritual life. The solemn creation of literary theory must take China as thinking foundation, take contemporary Chinese spiritual life as thinking axis, and must adhere to principles of value priority. Only we do those thinking work the study of literary theory can contribute its share to the rebuilding of Chinese thinking world, also prove worthy of the needs of the times which entitled accomplishing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

1992年以来文艺理论研究的三个阶段 江守义 安徽师范大学文学院

提要:1992年以来,我们的文艺理论建设大致经历了清算历史影响、融入外来思潮、建设文论体系这样三个阶段,从这三个阶段的情况看,当前的文论建设仍然处于一种摸索阶段。

Abstract: Since 1992, our construction about the theory of literature has roughly gone through three stages: clear historical effect, merge foreign ideological trends and construct theoretical systems of literature. And from all these three stages, construction about the theory of literature at present is still in groping stage.

新世纪文学批评研究概评 余三定 湖南理工学院中文系

提要:进入新世纪以来,学者们对于文学批评的研究,呈现出多样丰富并不断走向深入的发展态势,取得了丰硕的成果。这其中既有对文学批评历史的总结,也有对当下的文学批评的探讨,既有对“网络批评”、“媒体批评”、“学院批评”、“文化批评”、“酷评”等批评式样的具体分析,也有对文学批评的一般性问题,如批评的规范(标准、原则)、批评家的修养、文学批评的命运等问题的深入研究。

①关于网络批评。《南方文坛》2001年第3期崔红楠《穿过我的网络你的手》提到了“网络批评”。崔主要由自己的上网经验描述了网络批评的自由与驳杂。20016月北京市文联研究部在天津举办“网络批评、媒体批评与主流批评研讨会”,在这次会上提出了网络批评、媒体批评和主流批评(学院批评)三分天下的看法,网络批评的概念正式提了出来并从媒体批评中分离出来。

②关于媒体批评。媒体批评或叫传媒批评,一般指由大众传媒主导并在大众传媒展开的文艺批评。自2000年始,便不断有人对媒体批评提出质疑和批评。

③关于学院批评。蔡翔认为:20世纪80年代是作家和批评家的蜜月期,当时的青年作家和批评家能够互相对话和启发,形成强烈的互补。90年代以后,文学批评学院化了。(参见《当代学者、评论家谈中国当代文学》,载《中华读书报》1999929)当初,“学院批评”的提出具在积极的意义。孟繁华曾说:它是对庸俗社会学批评、对文学批评政治化的来自学院的另一种声音。这一观念的提出极大地改变了当代文学批评的方式和格局。文学批评的学术性得到了空前的加强,有效地抵制了“非批评”的侵入(《前沿批评的问题》,《中华读书报》2001326)。

④关于文化批评。文化批评最早起源于20世纪80年代的美国,大概于90年代初进入我国。它的引进使我国的文学批评具有了不同的视角和方法,并为文学批评的发展事来了积极的影响。近年来,文化批评受到了不少学者的关注和重视。

⑤关于其他类型的批评。文学批评理论界还对其他类型的批评形式进行了广泛的研究,主要的有:A酷评;B生态批评;C读者批评。

⑥关于文学批评(学科)如何建设及一般性问题的讨论.进入新世纪以来,对于文学批评(学科)如何建设及文学批评一般性问题的讨论是文学批评研究的一个重要方面,学者们在这一方面的研究非常活跃。

中国现代文论精神之发掘传承——文学现状与三十年文论建设及其策略的一点思考

金雅 中国社会科学院文学所 杭州师范大学人文学院

提要:当前中国文学生态及其特征的变化,文学消费市场旨趣的突出,给中国文论的发展提出了现实的课题。文学传媒由书面与印刷媒介转向电子与大众传媒,文学生产主体由专门作家到文化大众,文学接受主体由美的崇尚者到需求各异的消费大众。与此相呼应的是:文学内容呈现信息化趋势伴生着绝对化、庸俗化倾向,文学情趣呈现生活化趋势伴生着平庸化、肤浅化倾向,文学形式呈现技术化趋势伴生着表面化、形式化倾向,文学活动呈现开放性趋势伴生着随性化、任意化倾向。文学的新发展令人喜忧参半。而消费市场旨趣的泛滥,正是中国文学在当前所面临的最大挑战。无度地追逐娱乐和宣泄,盲目地崇尚信息与技术,使得文学的情感与想象、诗意与韵味在弱化,文学批判的力量与理想的召唤在弱化。

面对当前中国文学和审美趣味的新势态,我以为,中国现代文论在以下三个方面的精神品格值得引起关注:突出的人生论品格与深切的人生关怀,鲜明的诗性品格与浓郁的理想精神,强烈的文化批判意识与积极的理论新构意识。

中国现代文论萌生于上个世纪初年,古今中西文化的交融撞击与中华民族的腥风血雨熔铸了其宏阔的视野、高度的责任感与使命感。中国现代文论拥有一批富有实绩的理论家,如王国维、梁启超、郭沫若、田汉、朱光潜、宗白华、丰子恺、周作人等;拥有一批富有特色的理论成果,如梁启超的趣味理论,朱光潜的情趣理论,宗白华的艺术情调与意境理论等。

建国以后,由于研究立场、意识、方法、惯性、学养等问题,对于中国现代文论的发掘整理少而浅,其优秀传统未能有效地发掘传承,民族文论的血脉在新文论创构中也未有效地贯通。

新时期“三十年”来,马列文论、西方文论、古代文论等研究均取得了重要的实绩。中国现代文论承上启下的学术史地位及其现代性特征也逐渐引起学界关注,研究取得了新的拓展。但从整体上看,中国现代文论研究的实绩与其自身面貌还存在着明显的距离。

中国现代文论是铸古今中西之说为我所用的一种实验与实践。其许多重要理论成果正是中国古代文论现代转换的实绩。没有马列文论、西方文论等新的理论资源,中国当代文论难以涅槃;而试图从古典文论直接跳进到当代文论,又必然使中国文论缺乏贯通的血脉,同样难以顺利地新生。接续现代文论传统,也使我们有了必要的借鉴,可避免不必要的弯路。

中国现代文论生动而具个性的理论学说需要文化的学理的修养,也需要生命的融入与哲学的根基。接续中国现代文论的传统,打通中国文论发展演化的历史轨迹,在新的高度上将中西古今各种文论学说的精华予以吸纳化用,而创成针对中国文学、文论、文化之现实,具有民族品格、民族特色、时代特征的理论新说,随着新世纪的帷幕拉开,必将成为中国当代文论建设的重要课题和可以期待的成果。

AbstractThe ecosystem and characteristic of Chinese literature is changing at present, the commercial interest of Chinese literature is outstanding. This has put forward the realistic subject for development of Chinese literature theory. The media of literature is turned with printing media to the electron and masses' media writtenly, literature producers are from the special writer to general masses, and its accepters are from the aesthetical advocators to the consumers with different demand.The ones that worked in concert with this are: the content of literature have been presenting the information-based tendency with absolutization and philistinism, the interesting of iterature have been appearing the inclination of living and superficialling,literature form have been appearin technicalization with formalization, the literature activity wearing kinds of arbitrariness. This tendency makes us happy and worried half-and-half. And the overflowing of the commercial interest of literature is exactly the greatest challenges faced at present of Chinese literature. Chasing after the amusement and catharsis inordinately and upholding information and technology blindly make the literature’s sensibility,imagination, poetry and its charm lessen, and so do the strength of literature’s animadvent and the summons to ideal.

To the new tendency of Chinese literature, we should pay more attention to the three spiritual characteristics of Chinese Modern Literature Theory: outstanding with careing for life, strong poeticizing and ideal spirit, rich consciousness of the cultural criticism ang the theoretical construction.

Chinese Modern Literature Thoery sprouted in the early years of last century. The blending of the ancient and modern culture in China and western countries with the all kinds of hardships suffered by Chinese have cast its great and wide visual field, highly responsibility and assignment. There were a lot of accomplishment theorists in China, such as Wang Guowei, Liang Qichao, Guo Moruo, Tian Han, Zhu Guangqian, Zong Baihua, Feng Zikai, Zhou zuoren and so forth. We also had the achievements of characteristic literature theories, e.g., Liang Qichao’s theory of taste, Zhu Guangqian’s thoery of sentiment, Zong Baihua’s theory of artistic conception,etc.

Afer our new country building up, the excavation and trim for Chinese Modern Literature Thory were little and simple because of the problems such as the research standpoint ,consciousness, measures, inertia and attainments.It made the tradition of Chinese Literature Thoery ruptured seriously.

When the new era came, people in knowledge circle paid attention to the connecting link between the preceding and the following science history status, modern characteristics and achievements of Chinese Literature Thoery, and they attained a series of new accomplishments.But looking at the whole, there still exists the notable distance between the researching achievements and the achievements the

Chinese Literature Thoery really has.

Without the new thoery resources as Western Literature Thoery, and so as Chinese Ancient Literature Thoery. And the try to plunge into the Chinese Modern Literature Theory from the Chinese Classical Literature Thoery directly will make Chinese Literature Thoery inevitablely lack of run-through pulse. Chinese Literature Thoery itself is a kind of experiment and practice to make use of the casting of the ancient and modern, the home’s and abroad’s Literature Thoery. Inheriting the Modern Literature’s tradition offer us the necessary use for reference and shun from the needless detour.

The vivid and individuality of Chinese Modern Literature Thoery needs the achievements of culture and knowledge, the melting of life and the basement of philosophy. Inheriting the tradition of Chinese Modern Literature Thoery, getting through the evolution of it ,absorbing and adopting the elites of all kinds of literature theories from a higher point, and then setting up a new thoery with the national moral character, the national characteristic and the time characteristic aiming at the realism of Chinese literature,literature thoery and culture. With the new century arrives, this kind of thoery will certainly to become the theme of Chinese Moderm Thoery Constructioon and the anticipating achievements.

主体性·主体间性·后主体性——中国当代文艺学的三元结构 苏宏斌 浙江大学中文系

提要:主体性范畴的引入是新时期中国文艺学研究所取得的最大成就。它一方面导致了文学主体论的产生,另一方面又促使认识论文艺观从机械反映论发展到审美反映论。主体性理论本身是西方近代认识论哲学的产物,在现代思想中业已受到广泛的质疑和解构,但由于它契合了我国上个世纪八十年代思想解放的需要,因此成为推动文艺学发展的核心动力。

主体间性理论出现于上个世纪九十年代初,它既是对于主体性理论的合理补充,又是一种实质性的超越。近代的主体性理论存在两种倾向:一是把主体当作类或者社会,否定主体的个体性;二是把主体看作纯粹的个体,由此导致唯我论。这两种倾向都只有通过引入主体间性理论才能加以克服。不过,主体间性理论同时蕴涵着对于主体性哲学的解构力量,因为当主体间性或交互主体性被看作主体性的前提和基础时,就意味着主体不再是独立的实体。这时,后主体性或后现代思想的视野必然崭露出来。在文艺学研究中,这一理论将不再把文学看作作家个体创造活动的产物,而是视为作家与他人交往活动的产物和中介。

后主体性理论意味着对主体性理论的彻底消解。这种消解的背景在于,近代思想中作为社会性与个体性统一体的个人形象陷于瓦解,取而代之的是后现代个体。从一方面来看,后现代个体意味着对于社会性的彻底排除,意味着个体只关注自身,不再承担任何外部的社会责任,因为任何这类责任或实体都被看作宏大叙事的产物而加以抛弃;从另一方面来看,后现代个体又意味着对个体真实性的否定,因为自我、内在性、灵魂、深度等也被视为形而上学的虚构。后主体性理论既不关注作家创作的内在机制,也不探讨作家与他人之间的交往关系,而是以文本之间的交互影响关系(互文性)来取而代之。与此相应,文化研究也日渐侵蚀着文学理论的空间。

这三种理论视界在中国当代文艺学中错杂并陈,无法相互取代,从而营造出了一种多元的理论景观。这种景观与中国当代文化与文明的多元性特征恰相呼应,因而带有一定的必然性。

The putting forward of theory of subjectivity is the main achievement of Chinese literary theory in New-Period, since it brought about the epistemological literary theory developed into dynamic theory of reflection from mechanical theory of reflection. Although subjectivity is a category of west modern philosophy, which has been queried and dispelled by contemporary philosophy, it is corresponding to the needing of Chinese mind liberation in 80th of 20 century, so it became the main power to bring about the development of Chinese literary theory.

The theory of intersubjectivity was put forward at the beginning of last century’s 90th, which is both the complement and surpass to the theory of subjectivity. There are two tendencies in the theory of subjectivity: on the one hand, subject is regarded as mankind or sociality, which denied the personality of subject; on the other hand, subject is regarded as pure personality, which must lead to solipsism. Both of these two defects can be conquered by the theory of subjectivity, since sociality and personality are both constructed in the communication among subjects. Nevertheless, subject may also be deconstructed by the theory of intersubjectivity, because subject will no longer be an entity while it is thought to be founded above intersubjectivity. In this opinion, literature should be regarded as the result of communication among the author and other subjects, instead of the individual creation of the author.

The theory of postsubjectivity is the outcome of postmodernism, and it means the thorough deconstruction of subject. The reason of this propose is that subject has been replaced by postmodern person in nowadays, which will no longer undertake any responsibility from society. Such theory neither studies the inner process, nor researches the connect between author and the others, instead, it pays close attention to the connect among texts.

All of these tendencies exist side by side in Chinese contemporary literary theory, and non of them can replace the others. This pluralistic scene of theory is just consistent with Chinese contemporary civilization.

文化诗学方法中的三个问题 周欣展 南京大学

提要:文化诗学是上世纪80年代提出的新概念,不过,在广阔的文化视野下,或者说紧密联系多种文化因素来研究文学,这种方法中外自古有之,在现代中国的文学史领域,这种方法在实践中得到普遍而自觉地运用,并且取得出色的成绩。

古代文化诗学方法主要是文史哲综合研究学术传统的自然体现,晚清以来,文化诗学方法广泛学习借鉴西学成果,增添了西学的变数。在这种情况下,根据已往的经验教训,本文认为文化诗学方法有三个问题需要妥善解决。

其一是诊治文化冲击错觉和文化分裂症。所谓文化冲击错觉是指晚清以来在西方的军事入侵和政治经济压迫之下而形成的中国文化传统落后而有害,而西方文化先进而有益的认识。所谓文化分裂是指在西方文化的冲击下,中国文化保持了数千年的平衡状态被打破,原来可以调和共处的不同价值观念和社会矛盾开始尖锐到再也不能互相容忍并存的地步,非要用建立新的平衡统一体的方式给予彻底的解决不可。所谓文化分裂症是指在文化分裂的前提下,对于传统文化肯定与否定的错置。

其二是树立自觉的学术谱系意识,努力继承学术传统。在拥有悠久文化传统的国家或地区,学术上也会有独特传统。后来的学术研究都要在传统中起步、成长、发展,脱离和排斥传统,其发展就会先天不足、后天失调,乃至迷失方向,丧失自我。俄国形式主义就是自觉地继承亚里斯多德以来的西方形式美学传统的一个优秀成果。可为例证。

其三是辩证处理求同求异的关系。五四新文化运动以来,国内一度盛行唯科学主义,其后遗症至今仍未消除。唯科学主义中所包含的理性精神对中国人来说是具有高度价值的新思想。在文学研究领域追求文学普遍规律,对于中国文学理论的建设发展也起到积极的作用但是,如果忽视人文学科与自然科学的差别,忽视不同文化的差异,就往往会在追求抽象、普遍的定律的同时,忽视对作品的独创性、对作家心灵的深刻感受。这样得出的规律往往经不起检验。所以,从人人皆知的相异处求同自然难能可贵;而中外文化之异也并非一望可知,也需深入研究。故只有将文学理论的研究建立在中国文化和中国文学独特性的基础之上,方能避免肤泛之论或是似而非。

AbstractCultural Poetics is a new concept sprang up in the 80s of the last century. However, under a broader cultural perspective, or to research the literature by closely linking a variety of cultural factors, this method has existed since ancient times both in China and abroad; In the field of Chinese literary history, this method has been widely and consciously used in practice and has achieved excellent results.

Ancient Cultural Poetics method is the natural reflection of the academic tradition embodied in the comprehensive study of literature, history and philosophy. Since the late Qing Dynasty, Cultural Poetics method has been absorbing western achievements, and therefore has been influenced by the western learning. Under this situation, taking into consideration of previous experiences and lessons, the author of this paper believes that three problems in Cultural Poetics method need to be solved properly.

The first is to diagnose and treat the cultural shock illusion and the cultural splitting.

The so-called cultural shock illusion refers to the misconception which had been formed under the military invasion and political and economic oppression by the west since the late Qing Dynasty that the Chinese cultural tradition is backward and harmful, while the western culture is advanced and useful,.

The so-called culture splitting means that, under the impact of western culture, the Chinese cultural balance which had been retained for thousands of years has been broken, the different values and social contradictions which had been reconcile the coexistent became so sharp that they could no longer co-exist or tolerate each other, and a thorough solution could not be reached but for the establishment of a new balance.

The so-called cultural splitting means, under the premise of the cultural fragmentation, the affirming and denying of the traditional culture has been misplaced.

The second is to establish a conscious academic pedigree awareness, and to make efforts to inherit the academic tradition.

In a country or region with a long cultural tradition, there must be a unique academic tradition. Any academic research must start, grow and develop in this tradition, and if breaking away from or rejecting the tradition, its development would suffer from congenitally and postnatal defects and even lose its direction and identity. Russian formalism, an outstanding achievement realized by consciously inheriting the western aesthetic tradition since Aristotle’s time, is a good example.

The third is to dialecticaly deal with the relationship "Seek for the Common" and "Seek for the Different"

Since the May 4th New Culture Movement, scientism was once prevalent in China, and its aftermath has not been eliminated till this day. The rational spirit included in Scientism is a valuable new idea to the Chinese people. The pursuit of universal law in Literary Studies has played a positive role in the construction and development of Chinese literary theory.

However, if we ignore differences between the humanities and natural sciences, overlook the differences between different cultures, we may neglect to perceive in depth the originality of works and the spirit of writers while we pursue the abstract and common law. The law obtained this way is usually unable to hold water.

Therefore, it is commendable to seek for the common from the well-known differences; And the differences between Chinese culture and the foreign culture can not be discovered so easily and need in depth study. Only by basing the literary theoretical studies on the foundation of Chinese culture as well as the unique nature of the Chinese literature, we may avoid being superficial or ambiguous.

现状、问题与趋势:现代性理论与中国文学研究 张光芒 南京大学中文系

提要:一、文学现代性研究的背景及现状:20世纪90年代后,大陆思想界各个领域普遍在寻找研究范式的转型之际,“现代性”问题迅速成为一大焦点问题,先是在思想文化领域,继之扩展至美学、文学研究领域。

二、文学现代性研究的前沿主题及其特征:1、左翼文学、十七年文学、文革文学是否具有现代性?从现代性的角度对左翼文学、十七年文学和文革文学重新进行价值评判和文学史叙述,可以说是现代性视角为重写文学史提供的最突出成果之一。2、现代性与20世纪中国文学思潮及作家作品研究。上述关于左翼、十七年、文革文学思潮的现代性探讨是学界最富有争议也最具有探索空间的话题。然而对一个阶段的文学指认离不开对文学发展的整体历程,离不开对各个文学发展阶段之间错综复杂关系的考察,因此,只有以历史的眼光和整体的眼光对20世纪文学思潮进行全盘考察,才能够更好地理解中国文学的现代性特征。3、文体现代性的生成及其特质。近两年,多家文学期刊以笔谈的形式探讨了媒体与中国现代文体的生成、演进、流变之间的深层关联,表现出研究者的自觉意识。4、中国文学的本土现代性及其建构。相对于前几年研究者普遍表现出的唯“现代性”是从的研究倾向,近两年研究者表现出强烈的反思意识。5、中国文学现代性的空间性。以往学界对进步的渴望,对现代性的焦虑压抑了对于中国现代性的空间意识的探讨,直到最近几年才逐渐有学者开始注意到更加具有本质意义的空间问题。6、身份认同:中国文学现代性研究的新路径。从身份认同角度出发就为我们切入现代性体验研究提供了又一条新的路径,关注人生的体验和感受恰恰也是文学研究的基点。7、底层叙述与对现代性话语的反思。近几年“底层文学”这一话题的涌现为反思现代性提供了一个独特的视角。

三、文学现代性研究存在的问题及其根源:1、对现代性概念理解的混乱驳杂。第一种情况表现为研究者含混使用“现代主义”、“现代化”、“现代性”等概念,将现代性等同于现代化和现代主义,缺乏对三者的仔细考辨。第二种情况表现为研究者对于现代性与传统性、现代性与后现代性在概念理解上存在分歧。2、惟启蒙现代性是从的研究倾向。我们发现,学界普遍形成了惟现代性是从的倾向,对现代性盲目推崇,缺乏对现代性的弊端以及内在悖论性的反思。3、以现代性理论遮蔽鲜活感性的文学现实。大而化之地僵化套用现代性理论,以现代性理论遮蔽鲜活、感性的文学现实。

四、关于文学现代性研究的趋势预测及其发展建议:1、在现代性的多元张力中理解20世纪中国文学的多维图景。现代性是一个体系性和流动性的概念,因此,以现代性话语来重述中国现代文学,必须避免本质主义或二元对立的研究思维。2、注重审美现代性体验研究。在充分关注现代性的多元张力的基础上,我们还应该兼顾到文学研究的自身特性,进一步将研究重心适当向审美现代性领域偏移。3、在传统与后现代的参照体系中坚守现代性立场。4、民族认同与“可选择的现代性”。我们强调要既坚守现代性,又传承民族传统文化,将现代性与民族性合二为一,注重现代性的多样性内容与多维度视阈,在差异中体现民族特质,凸显自身的特殊性与鲜活性,从而也有益于民族认同的建构。

AbstractOne The background and current situation of the literature modernity research

After the 1990s, almost every thinking area of the mainland China was at the turn point. At that time, the “ modernity ” issue rapidly became the focus of the attention. First it was only talked at the thinking and culture area , then it spread out to the areas of aesthetics and the research of literature.

Two The advancing front topic and character of the literature modernity research

1 whether the left-wing Chinese literature the 17-year-Chinese literature(1949-1966) and the great proletarian cultural revolution Chinese literature (1966-1976) have the character of modernity or not?

From the view of modernity, we made a new judgment on the values of those periods of the Chinese literature and a new narration of them . For this reason, we can say that one of the most outstanding achievements of using the theory of modernity is to rewrite the history of those periods of Chinese literature.

2 The modernity VS the 20th century Chinese literature trends and the research of authors and their works

The topic we mentioned above is the most controversial and exploring . However, the identification of one period of the literature is in the connection of the whole history of literature. Therefore, only with the overall and historical view to look at the 20th century Chinese literature trends, then can we understand the character of Chinese literature fully.

3 The formation and its character of the style modernity

For the past two years, many literature periodicals published the articles about the inherent relationships between the media and the generatingchanging and development of Chinese modern literature in the form of conversation by writing. It expressed the self-conscious of our researchers.

4 The native modernity and its construction of the Chinese literature

In the past few years , most of the researchers only did researches on the “modernity” issue. Contrary to it , the researchers rethink this issue carefully in recently.

5 The extensity of the Chinese literature modernity

At the past time, the academic circles’ hope of improvement and anxiety of modernity has constrained the talk about the spacial sense of Chinese literature modernity. But it is only now ,that have the researchers to attach importance to this issue.

6 Self-identity :a new method of researching the Chinese literature modernity

Self –identity is a new method of researching the Chinese literature modernity. And at the same time, the basic point of literature research is concerning the experience and feeling of our lives.

7 The narration for the bottom people of the society and the rethinking of the modernity discourse

In recent years, the literature about the bottom people of the society is springing up. This is another special view for us to rethink the modernity of literature.

Three The inherent problems and its root of the research about the literature modernity

1 The confused understanding of the concept of modernity

First, the researchers can not make clear about these concepts, like modernism”、”modernity and modernization. So they misuse them. Second, there still are many different opinions about the concepts of the modernity tradition and post-modernity.

2 Enlightenment is the only research trend for the modernity

We can easily find that our academic circles only do research on the modernity and blindly value the modernity. Obviously it lacks of the rethinking about the weakness of the modernity.

3 The theory of modernity covers the living literature reality

Some researchers apply mechanically with the theory of modernity .As a result, the theory of modernity wraps the living literature reality.

Four The prediction and suggestion for the research of the literature modernity

1 Only we understand the multivariate tensility of the modernity ,then we can comprehend the multidimensional prospect of the 20th century Chinese literature

Modernity is a systematic and flexible word. Therefore, when we rewrite the history of the Chinese modern literature, we should avoid the thoughts of the essential ideology and the bivariate opponency.

2 Pay more attention to the research about the arts of the modernity

On the basis of taking note of the multivariate tensility of the modernity, we should emphasize the futures of the literature research and slowly change the main point to the research of arts of the modernity.

3 Referring to the tradition and post-modern, we should insist on our modernity position

4 Nationality-identity and the optional modernity

We not only insist on the modernity, but also keep on the tradition. So then we can unify the modernity and the nationality into one part. On one hand, we should put great emphasis on the diversities of modernity. On the other hand, we must make the character of nationality standout .All of these are good for the construction of the nationality identification.

文学理论的反思研究 邢建昌 河北师范大学研究生学院

提要:反思性,是世界范围内后现代语境下人文学科和社会科学的一个基本特点。反思成为众多人文学科和社会科学化解危机、超越自身的基本方式。中国文学理论的反思,既是世界范围内文学理论反思在中国问题中的落实,又具有自己的特点。文化保守主义思潮的涌动,跨学科间的互动,以及学科内部发展的需要, 是中国文学理论反思意识得以强化的主要诱因。反思,增进了不同文学理论与批评流派之间的交流与对话,文学理论进入了一个理性建设和学理表达的时期。

以道观之——当代文艺学、美学学科建设问题探讨 王建疆 西北师范大学文学院

提要:美学、文艺学作为人文学科,在学术范式的确定性,研究结论的公理性和普适性方面必然具有学科共性,具有共享话语特征。不能因为强调学科的民族性和个别性而取代这种学科共性。

中国有没有自己的文论和美学传统?中国文论和美学如何建构?本文认为,中国的美学和文艺学学科首先要讲公理、范式、共性,而不是盲目追求所谓特色或个性。接受学科范导的意义不在于是否有学术个性,而首先在于一个学科能否成立。同时,也不能从学科发展的水平高低来论断该学科是否存在,而是要看学科发展的现实的路径。以此观之,当代中国美学和文艺学已经在自然生成中走着自己的路。

中国美学正在形成一个以与现实保持一定距离,以开放性、吸纳性、思辨性和关联性为特征的美学新传统。美学、文艺学学科的发展,是在学科范导、传统影响等共同作用下的自然生成过程,应该遵循自然无为之道,避免不必要的重建和盲目的折腾。

Abstract: Wang Jianjiang points out that a principle is in need of explicating its axiom, paradigm and common ground, rather than blindly pursuing a so-called characteristics or individuality. The Chinese aesthetics has been formed a new tradition that keep away from the reality, and open, assimilate, combine past and present. The development of a principle should abide by a natural way, rather then a blind reconstruction.

文化诗学:建构中国当代文学理论的方向 杨红莉 石家庄学院

提要:中国文学理论目前处于危机状态。我以为“危机感”实际上是因为我们还没有弄清楚新的生活方式产生的根源,没有适应这种新生活方式,还缺乏对由于新的生活方式的到来而导致的学科变化的规律性认识以及采取应变措施所导致的。一旦认识到这种变化的取向,在其中找到并确立了自己的学术立场,这种无措的危机感也许会转化为积极的建构意识。

“文化诗学”是一种既尊重传统学术成果,又充分尊重现实新变的富有可行性的中国当代文学理论建构之路。本文试图对“文化诗学”的整体文化观与诗学精神做出自己的理解。

“文化诗学”主要包括以下内涵:①其研究对象是文学文本、文学现象、文学思潮,总之是和文学艺术活动相关的事项;②其研究方法是跨学科的,既是文学的、美学的,也是超越文学、美学进入到民俗学、人类学、社会学、政治学、经济学、心理学、哲学等其他学科的,是从文学的角度进入对象,而从更广泛的文化的角度升发对象,以提供一种文化的精神为目的;③其审美尺度是文化和诗学的双重标准,并且这两者的融合要能够如羚羊挂角无迹可求;④“文化诗学”追求人文精神的内涵。

文化诗学方法兼顾了人文学科的人文性和科学性双重特征。简单地理解“文化诗学”的意图,即是“从跨学科的文化视野,把所谓的‘内部研究’与‘外部研究’贯通起来,通过对文学文本的分析,广泛而深入地接触和联系现实”(北京师范大学出版社“文化与诗学丛书”总序),即向着文化——人类精神生活的高度和方向开掘文学。从这一点看出,文化诗学含蕴的领域之宽是十分令人惊异的。

走向跨文化研究的文学理论 李庆本 北京语言大学比较文学研究所

提要:20世纪80年代,中国文学理论的主要任务是确立文学的审美本性,到了90年代,文化研究逐渐取代审美研究,成为文学研究的主要模式。文化研究强调文学与当代大众文化的现实关联性,具有积极意义,但也存在着忽视文学理论学科本性的缺陷。跨文化研究超越东方/西方二元对立模式,遵循“多元化的普遍主义”原则,强调审美研究与实证研究的统一, 可以成为未来文学理论发展的一条切实可行的途径。

Abstract: The main task of Chinese Literary Theory in 1980s was to establish its Aesthetic nature. But after 1990, this Aesthetics studies had gradually been replaced by Cultural Studies, which had became the main model of literary research. The Cultural Studies, stressing the close relation with the popular culture, had positive meaning, but it negatively ignored the nature of Literary Theory as a subject. Cross-Cultural Studies, which transcends the dualism of Orient/Occident, follows the principia of Multi-Universalism, and stresses the unification of Aesthetics Studies and empirical studies, will probably become one of the development routes of Literary Theory in the coming years.

观看之道——跨学科视野中的文艺学 周计武 南京大学中文系

提要:最近几年,文艺学的边界、非文学的文学性、文学研究与文化研究的关系、日常生活的审美化等问题成为学术界论争的焦点。这些论争是文艺学自我反思的需要,值得肯定。中国正处于改革开放的社会转型期。一方面,人们的生活方式和文化观念发生了巨大的变化;另一方面,新的文艺现象和文艺观念层出不穷,如“图文之争”、“欲望化写作”、新媒介艺术等。这些变化对文艺学的课程设置、研究对象和研究理念构成了挑战。面对这些挑战,文艺学学科陷入了自我定位的困境。钱中文先生把这种困境理解为“文艺学的合法性危机”。

针对这种危机,学术界的立场大体上可分为三类:1、坚守阵地,捍卫文艺学学科的合法性。这些学者坚持以文学为研究对象,主张文艺的自主性和文艺边界的确定性。2、游击作战,质疑学科建制的合法性。这些学者大量借鉴西方的社会理论资源和文化研究方法,主张打破边界,跨越鸿沟。3、和而不同,在批判与反思中建构文艺学。这些学者主张以开放的心态和平等对话的精神,在跨学科的视野中重新整合文艺学的研究资源。本文主要阐释第三种立场。

第三种立场有两个理论前提:第一、文艺观念既具有特定的历史性和地方性,也具有跨越时空的家族相似性。这就要求我们既要有强烈的历史感,也要有敏锐的现实意识;既要有国际化的眼光,也要有本土化的视野。第二、任何研究策略都具有一定的合理性和内在的局限性。同时,受知识和信仰的影响,我们的研究对象是高度选择性的。它有时会使我们变得深刻,有时会使我们变得片面。这就要求我们在跨学科的视野中,多元透视,整体把握,不断挖掘新的文献资料和理论资源,寻找新的学科生长点。

Abstract: There are many issues becoming focuses at the centre of academia in recent years, such as the borderline of literature and art, the literariness of non-literature, the relation between literary researches and cultural studies, the aesthetization of everyday life, which are to be sure because they have become the need of self-reflection in the subject. China are in the period of social transformation of open and reform, which brought great changes between the way of life and the cultural ideas of people on the one hand, and new forms and ideas of literature and art like “duspute between images and words”, “writing for the desire”, “new media art”emerging in endlessly on the other, such changes challenged the arrangement of courses, research objects and ideas of literature and art. When facing this challenge, the subject of literature and art got into the dilemma of self-orientation, which was understood to be “the crisis of legality” by Mr. Qian Zhongwen.

Such crisis causes three positions in the academia. Firstly, the legality of subject is firmly adhered by scholars who consider literature as the research object, claiming that the subject is independent and its boaderlines is certern. Secondly, they question the legality of it’s setup, trying to break its boaderlines when using the western social theoretic resourses and the ways of cultural studies for reference. Thirdly, they establish the subject in criticism and reflection, regulating renewedly the research resourses of the subject in the perspective of interdiscipline with open intention and spirit of corporate conversation. My paper mainly interpreted the third position.

There are two theoretic premisses for the third position. One is that the ideas of literature and art possess either special histority and locality or it’s transpatio-temporal family similarity, which demand that we have either the strong sense of history or the acute consciousness of reality, either the internationalized eyesight or the perspective of locality. The other is that any research ways have certain rationality and internal localization, and our research objects are highly selective under the influence of knowledge and belief, sometimes it will make us profound, sometimes it will bring us unilateralism, all of which ask us to grasp them wholly in the perspective of interdiscipline, constantly excavating new documental and theoretic resourses, looking for new development of the subject.

20世纪80年代文学主体性论争——作为中国当代文论发展史的解读

孟登迎 中国青年政治学院

提要:上世纪80年代出现的“文学主体性论争”涉及新时期文学理论的立论基础,并最终触及文艺观念的深层变革问题:即如何看待文学与社会政治的关系、如何看待个体的自由、情感和价值等问题。本文试图将这场论争本身看作一个充满对话与矛盾的社会文本来解读,发现论争各方的观点及其互动基本呈现了新时期文论发展的内在张力和线索。

刘再复的“文学主体性”话语实际承传了一套源于近现代以来形成的强调文学为人生、为社会的人道主义文学观念(以鲁迅、周作人、胡风、巴人、钱谷融等人为代表)。刘再复的“文学主体性”包含如下三方面涵义:应该恢复人作为实践主体的地位,应该探寻人在文学领域作为“精神主体”的深层心理结构,应该尊重和肯定不同类型的文学个性和作家个性。

刘再复的主体论文学观引发的争论大致可归为三类:忧虑与反对;支持与补充;反思局限与寻求突破。以陈涌为代表的批评者正确指明了主体只在实践中以主动和受动的辩证互动而存在,但他们囿于理论局限,无法说明文艺反映意识形态和社会生活的特殊性是以何种方式存在和进行的。大多数支持刘文的观点和批驳刘文观点的文章都用“新”与“旧”二元简单划分把学术论争简单化,论争有流于简单表态的趋势。不少论争者在对“主体性”范畴未做深入的清理之时,就开始卷入文艺与政治、与意识形态命运的论争当中,彼此常以断言替代严密的逻辑分析,极大地束缚了论争的深层展开。只有少数学者试图分析造就“新”、“旧”文艺观的理论前提,并将此定位为文艺理论变革的关键。这场论争导致了文艺深层观念的冲撞和探索,为“新”文论体系的启动创造了契机。文学主体性论争对中国当代文论建设的影响深远,目前在中国文论界有较大影响的四种文学理论观——主体论文学观、象征论文学观、生产论文学观和审美意识形态文学观,都在很大程度上受到了文学主体性论争话语的促进和影响。当然,也有学者从这场论争中看到了主体性文论话语的局限,陈燕谷、靳大成指出其以古典人道主义作为立论基础的滞后性,批评刘所言“主体性本质上以某种统治关系为基础。”到1988年不少学者已经开始走入对“主体”如何被建构而成、主体自由的界限和边界的思考。从某种意义上说,这些批评之声可以看作是主体性话语走向消解的标志。

AbstractIn order to construct a new system of Chinese literary theory, we should inspect the history of its formation. The dissertation considers the Dispute on literary ubjectivity as a representive cultural event in New Periodof China. Through the analyses of the opinions from each side involved, I want to provide some usefulness for the construction of literary theory in the future.

The Dispute on the literary subjectivity” has its special socio--cultural context. With the transformation in social reality, a deep change was caused in people’s mind. At that time the argument on human nature and humanism prevailed in academic circle, “the Dispute on literary subjectivity” corresponded with this tide.

The wording of “literary subjectivity” is first advanced by Liu zai-fu, a young scholar who suffered from the mental agonies for “Cultural Revoloution Movement”.In his view, “Man”(individual subject) should consider himself and should be considered as a free,active and respectable “subject”, not as a passive “object” as it is in “the Theory of Reflection”. He combined his early research on literary characters with some modern philosophical and psychological theories, eventually deduced his conclusion which can run through the whole literary activity.

Liu’s theory brought aout a heated argument. Many scholars participated in it, some agreed, some opposed, some felt dissatisfied, some even violently criticised. This argument displayed not only the composition of the interllectual community, but also the measures they took and they could take. I think the latter is more important for us to consider, because from there we may find more useful infomation for literary theory’s construction and limation.

This argument promotes contemporary literary theory in China to self-conscious and enriches the new displines of literature. On the other hand, we mustn’t ignore its historical limitation, such as the lack of philosophical basis, the interference from non-academic aspects, the Utopian passion for intellectual authority, and so on. We can learn much from this argument, and we should know clearly that although we are facing an embarassed situation, we ought not to lose the ideal of construction.

政治元素在当代文学理论中的意涵迁移 孙盛涛 青岛大学师范学院中文系

提要:政治元素在我国当代文论系统经历了从中心向边缘的转移,由取代审美作为艺术价值判断“第一”标准的神圣化地位,降为在文学批评话语中悄然隐退的缺席状态。在当代中国文论与美学命题中,“文艺为政治服务”曾作为理论旗帜、以毋庸置疑的真理式话语体系占据美学理念的主导地位,获得了惟一合法化存在的意义。由此而生的负面影响是理论文本在庸俗化、教条式的思想指针的拨弄下源源不绝地涌现,在现实中导致对不同思想观念的专断式的压制和排斥。20世纪末期,随着艺术审美地位的上升,原有的贬抑艺术独立地位的堂皇理念逐渐受到质疑。而伴随社会改革开放的深入和市场经济新秩序的建立,理论研究中的政治失语现象悄悄出现,表征为对过去以政治贬抑艺术地位的理论命题缺乏反思、对于文学与艺术文本中的政治意识疏于关注。虽然,近几年理论领域有关政治美学的探讨、有关政治论诗学的构想在某种程度上试图缓冲这种政治冷漠状况,但政治元素在文论系统已然发生实质性迁移。

如果说由中心向边缘的转移只是一种外在的地位变化,那么政治语词形式的转换,则显示出中西方文论对话交往过程以及社会思潮影响下,政治元素内在意蕴的扩展。文化政治、审美政治以温和而多义的思想指向,取代了锐利而更多单一性的时代政治,化强权式干预为潜隐式渗透。实际上,文学理论界域政治语义的转换在西方马克思主义文论及美学领域已产生丰富的学术成果,充实了文学理论发展的新课题。

Abstract: Political elements have undergone the process of marginalization in China’s contemporary literary theory system. They have been relegated from the divine status which once replaced the aesthetics’ first-norm position in judging art value to the gradual absent status in literary criticism dialogues. In contemporary Chinese literary theory and aesthetic proposition, the slogan “ literature and art serve for politics”, once as the theory standard, led in the aesthetic concept by the undoubted truth dialogue system and it was granted as the special honor of the sole legitimate existence. The negative influence was that theory tests flooded continuously under the guidelines of the vulgarized and dogmatic ideology and they resulted in the arbitrary suppression and rejection of different ideological concepts. At the end of Twentieth Century, as art aesthetics upgraded its position, the former high-sounding concept that depreciated the independent position of art was gradually suspected. With the deepening of social reform and opening-up and the establishment of the new order of marker economy, the phenomenon of political aphasia in the theory study gradually emerged, shown by the lack of reflection on the theory proposition in which politics depreciated the position of art in the past and the negligence of attention to the political ideology of the literary and art tests. Although the probing into the politics aesthetics in the theory domain in recent years and the concept concerning political poetry intended to ease the indifferent situation of politics to some extent, politics did have already been marginalized essentially in the literary theory system.

If the marginalization is just an outward position shift, the form shift of political words indicates the extension of the implication of political element in the Sino-Western dialogues and exchanges and under the influence of social trends. Cultural politics and aesthetic politics, with the mild and diversified guidelines, replaced the sharp and monotonous politics of times. And they changed from power interference to latent penetration. In fact, the political semantic shift in the domain of literary theory has made tremendous academic achievements and enriched the new topics for the literary theory development.

本世纪初文学理论建设审视 戴冠青 泉州师范学院中文系

提要:21世纪以来短短数年间,文论界关于文学理论建设的话题和行动进行得特别频繁和热烈。这一方面体现出中国文论界迫切希望与世界接轨、迫切希望建构新的文论话语的热情和态势;另一方面也透露出中国文论在全球化语境和消费文化背景下的焦虑情绪和突围构想。然而这么多年过去,我们对建设中国文论的自信心似乎没有增长反而有所衰减。究其原因是,我们一直找不到真正具有独创意义的逻辑起点,我们的当代文论建设许多还停留在构想之上,中国特有的求全责备的文化心态也导致中国文论难以有独到的理论建树。也许充分利用古典文论资源,梳理出独具特色的中国文艺批评的话语模式,或者扬长避短,发展东方人所擅长的感悟性文学批评,是一种有效的突围选择。

AbstractDuring the short period of the several years since the 21st century, there are frequent and heated discussions and actions concerning literary theories in the literary theory circles. The phenomenon, on the one hand, shows that the Chinese literary theory circles has the enthusiasm and momentum in their urgent desire to joined the world, and to construct new texts of literary theories, and on the other hand, also reveals worries and ideas of breakthroughs of the Chinese literary theories in the globalized language environment and the background of consumptive culture. However, after so many years, our confidence in constructing Chinese literary theories is fading away rather than increasing. The reasons are that we haven’t found the logical starting point that is really unique, our efforts in constructing the current literary theories are still remaining on the conception, and the cultural mentality----being critical and demanding perfection, which is characteristic of Chinese culture, results in the lack of uniqueness in the Chinese literary theories. Maybe one effective alternative for the breakthrough is: to work out the characteristic modes of texts of Chinese art & literature criticisms by making full use of the resources of classical literary theories; or, by making the best use of our advantages while at the same time avoiding our disadvantages, to develop the reflective literature criticism that is what the oriental people are good at.

新时期文艺理论界四“癖”之反思 张冠华 郑州大学文学院

提要:新时期文艺理论界存在四种“癖好”:“审美”之癖;“危机”之癖;“求新”之癖;“呼吁”之癖。第一种癖好表现为“言必审美”。“审美”之癖的主要症结是注意了区别而忽略了联系,即对文艺与政治、经济、时代、伦理、宗教、社会结构、思维方式、价值准则、文化背景、民族心理等的关系和联系注意得不够,讲得不够;我们不赞成的是把“审美”字眼泛滥化,并不反对必需和科学使用“审美”字眼,包括把它作为修饰语和用它来改造过去的术语。第二种癖好表现为“言必危机”。其实这是不必要的。从整体上看,任何民族的文艺理论,都永远会处于无间断性的危机之中,不是出现这样的危机,就是出现那样的危机;旧的还没有结束,新的就又产生了;危机,是它的正常状态,危机的消除,便意味着文艺理论的真正死亡。从这个角度上看,危机,是文艺理论生命的组成部分,是它的一种独特的品格。其具体理由如下:其一,从文艺理论与艺术实践的关系中看,文艺理论永远是滞后的,永远处于未决状态,在一定程度上与艺术实践脱节;其二,从特点上看,任何文艺理论都是在某种领域和某种角度对文学的思考,其结果是“顾此失彼”;其三,从文艺理论的发展过程看,它是质疑者,又是被质疑者,没有永恒的形态、原理、观念、术语;其四,从文艺理论的自性上看,它所蕴含的主观成分,使裁剪与曲解客观的艺术事实现象根本无法避免。第三种癖好表现为在学术上“以追求新奇为荣”。显然,这是一种误区。文艺学不是时髦学。文艺学虽然面向未来,但未来并未成为现实,它概括的主要是从古到今的审美经验、审美规律。从份量上看,过去的东西占大头。可是我们却轻视这个大头,显然是不妥当的。第四种癖好表现为“以呼吁为本”。新时期以来,站在城头大声呐喊、呼吁的人有余,而坐下来潜心研究的人不足,结果是彼问题还未深入研究、取得成果,就被此问题否定或替代。“呼吁”之癖带来的不良后果这几年已显示出来了,那就是文艺学的浮躁。即文艺学在口号中、呼吁中过日子,研究者无所适从、动辄得咎。要说危机,这才是真正的文学理论危机。

启蒙的多维度与中国现代主义文论的启蒙性 王洪岳 浙江师范大学人文学院

提要:启蒙应具备三个维度,即理性、感性和神性。前两个维度构成启蒙大厦的框架和肌理,后一个维度则使大厦具有了神圣的象征意味。中国的启蒙主义也应该具备这三个维度。如果说浪漫主义主要激发了中国人的群体性情感,现实主义主要培育了中国人的群体性理性,那么,现代主义则主要刺激了现代中国人的个体感性(尤其非理性)领域,成为启蒙的感性维度的重要方面。同时,中国现代主义文论也参与了启蒙的神性维度的建构。

中国现代主义文论最早的形式是以译介方式出现的。对尼采、叔本华等的译介构成了中国现代主义文论的哲学美学基础。一方面,中国现代的启蒙思想家王国维、鲁迅等将当时西方最时髦最具先锋性的哲学美学和中国的启蒙建构结合到一起。王国维的“无用之用”是中国最早的带有现代主义色彩的美学思想,是对康德和叔本华美学思想的中国化表述。它是中国现代的“感性启蒙”思想。鲁迅早期亦将这些非理性主义或现代主义思想家当成自己的同道。三四十年代的林同济认识到尼采思想具有“极端尖锐的直觉”,其艺术具有浓厚的“象征性”等等,都说明了中国现代主义文论与感性启蒙的密切关系。简言之,中国现代主义文论是在两种现代性即启蒙现代性和审美现代性的悖论当中建构了启蒙的感性维度。

另一方面,中国现代主义文论还承载了建构启蒙的神性维度的重任。这体现为以象征主义为代表的现代主义诗学所具有的神学来源。启蒙时期的西方哲人曾经论述过启蒙与神性信仰之间的交互关系。我们从中国现代主义诗学的相关文献中,发现它与启蒙之神性维度的关系。作为基督徒的中国现代主义诗论家梁宗岱的“纯诗”诗学观,关注诗的神性和神秘性,关注诗的神性与人的精神的“契合”等等思想也与基督教神学关系密切。三十年代他发现了法国纯诗理论背后的基督教信仰的潜在力量,纯诗论超度我们的灵魂达到“不朽的宇宙”。梁宗岱深刻地表达了宗教信仰与现代主义之间的密切关系。因此,中国现代主义诗学是中国启蒙主义的多维立体目标中的应有之义。

Abstract: Enlightenment should be haven three dimensionalities, namely rational-ity, sensibility and divinity. The ex- two dimensionalities are constituted the frame and texture of the illuminative mansion, and the last dimensionality then endows the mansion with the sacred symbol meaning. Enlightenment in China should also have these three dimensionalities. If we say that the romanticism stirred up primarily the Chinese community temperament, realism grew the rationalistic of Chinese community primarily, so, the modernism then stimulated the modern Chinese individual sensitive faculty( particularly non- rationalism) realm primarily, becoming important aspect that the dimensionality of sensibility of enlightenment. At the same time, the Chinese modernism theory also participated the construction of the divinity of enlightenment.

The earliest form of theory of Chinese modernism is the mode of translation. Translating about Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are the foundation of Chinese modernist theories. On the one hand, Wang Guowei, Lu Xun etc., these illuminative thinkers in modern China, put these vanguard philosophical aesthetics of the West with the construction of Chinese enlightenment joining together. Theories of "useless use" of Wang Guowei is the earliest esthetical thoughts taking the modernist colors in China , that is to express these aesthetics of Kant and Schopenhauer in Chinese style. It is "the enlightenment of sensibility" thought in modern China. Lu Xun in early times identified these non-rationalist or modernist thinkers as fellows. Lin Tongji ,living in the 1930-40 ,knew the thoughts of Nietzsche having" extreme sharp of intuition", and its art having profound "symbol quality " etc., all these were explaining the relation consanguineously between Chinese modernism and enlightenment. To be brief, the theories of Chinese modernism constructed the dimensionality of sensibility of enlightenment in two kinds of modernities--the modernity of enlightenment and the modernity of aesthetics.

On the other hand, the theories of Chinese modernism loaded the heavy responsibility of construction the dimensionality of divinity of enlightenment. This incarnates the source of theology that the modernist poetics by symbolism, its representative. The western philosophers of the age of enlightenment had ever discussed relations between the enlightenment and divine faith to each other. We discovered the relations between Chinese modernist poetics and divinity dimensionality of enlightenment from the related cultural data. The poetics of" pure poem" of Liang Zongdai—a famous modernist critic and a Christian –learned the view, namely paying attention to the divinity of the poem with mystery, and the "agreement" about the divinity of the poem and the human spirit etc., has a relation with Christianity theology closely. He discovered the latent power of Christianity belief in the poetics of pure poem in France, the theories of pure poem releasing our souls from purgatory to "immortal cosmos" in 1930's. Liang expressed the close relation between the faith of religion and modernist poetics profoundly. Therefore, Chinese modernist theory is stereoscopic target in dimensionalities of Chinese enlightenment.

经典化批评的现代性历史元叙事及其悖论——以建国后十七年文学批评为中心

李松 武汉大学文学院

提要:以现代性历史元叙事作为切入口,可以发现建国后十七年经典化批评的历史观具有自反性的宿命以及自身无法突破的悖论。这种尴尬、悖谬的悲剧性历史决定了以现代性、“一体化”、“不断革命”论为特征的文学批评必然走向崩溃的命运。

Abstract: Surveyed from the angle of modernity' historical meta-narration, a self-betrayal fate and an inevitable paradox can be detected in the view of history that classical criticism holds in the 17 years after the establishment of P. R China. This embarrassing, paradoxical and tragic history dooms the collapse of literature criticism whose features are modernity, “integration” and the theory of “continuous revolution”.

尊体·破体·原体——近30年批评文体研究之实绩 李建中 武汉大学文学院

提要:近30年中国文论批评文体研究的实绩,表现在“尊体”、“破体”和“原体”三个层面。中国文论自身有着尊体传统,早在刘勰的时代便已具备成熟的文体意识。当代学者弘扬尊体传统,建立起“怎么说比说什么更为重要”的文体意识,并以此为出发点重构中国文学批评史,重开中国文学批评的诗径和理路,从而对当下文学批评的流行病症作出批判性回应,并对文学批评的未来路径作出探索性开启。从批评文体的视角重新考察中国文学批评在历朝历代的嬗变,则可见出“破体”规律。这一规律体现于两个方面:设文之体有常,特定的言说内容须安放于相应的言说方式(体裁、语体、风格等)之中,但古往今来的中国文论家却“破”这个“常”,有意无意地将理论内容安放于文学文体之中,此其一;一时代有一时代之批评文体,此一时代之新文体是对彼一时代之旧文体的“破”,此其二。前者滥觞于庄子,后者绵延至当下。近30年批评文体研究,在继承尊体传统与发现破体规律的基础上又提出原体思路。尊体与破体,看似悖立实则契合,契合于“体”之原始义:人之“體”(身体、生命之总属)。当“体”之原始义延伸至文学批评时,研究者从相关的文论术语(体性、体貌、体格、体势)中,体悟到“风清骨峻”之生命感和“才性异区”之独创性。说到底,中国文论的“尊体”是对生命的尊重,中国文论的“破体”是对个性的张扬。然而,当下技术化社会的工具主义和功利主义正在销蚀文学批评的生命感,而对学术活动的量化管理又将文学批评的个性特征格式化。中国文论研究的“原体”思路,旨在探求批评文体诗性传统的文化之源和文字之根,重塑“體”之生命尊严感和个体独创性,从而将传统形态的“怎么说”创造性地转换为现代形态的“怎么说”。因此,近30年批评文体研究从“尊体”、“破体”到“原体”的思路及实绩,是从新时期到新世纪“古代文论现代转换”这一主旋律之中的华美乐章。

Abstract: The outcome of the research of styles of literary criticism in resent 30 years represent on three lays: respect styles, break styles and originate styles. Chinese criticism has a tradition of respect styles, mature style consciousness had already built in Liu xie’s period. Contemporary scholars carry forward this tradition of respect styles, set up a style consciousness consider that how to say is more important than what to say. They rebuild the history of Chinese literary base on this style consciousness, recreate the poetic road and academic path of Chinese literary criticism, and respond to the prevalent symptom in today’s criticism, try to explore the new way of literary criticism in the future. Reviewing the diversification in Chinese literary criticism during the past dynasties form the view of criticism style can bring us the rules of “break styles”. This rule represents on two aspects: suppose the styles has its law, special content calls for special mode (genre, style, manner) to express, but Chinese critics of all ages “broke” this constant style, express the theoretical content in a literary way consciously or unconsciously; another is the evolvement of the traditional style, each age has its particular critical style, the style of a new age is the “break” of the previous one. The former aspect can trace back to Chuang-tzu, the latter one remains existent today. The research of styles of literary criticism in resent 30 years bring forward the thought to originate styles base on the tradition of respect styles and the rule of break styles. Respect styles and break styles looks like absurdity, but correspond to each other very much, agree with the original meaning of “style”: style of people (summarie of body and life ) . When the original meaning of “style” stretch into literal field, researchers realize the sense of dignity and individuation of life from correlative critic terms (character, aspect, pattern, and potential). In one word, “respect styles” in Chinese literary criticism is the respect to life, “break styles” in Chinese literary criticism is the development of individuality, and “originate styles” is rebuilding the life dignity sense and original creation of “style” on the premises of the research on the culture source and character root of criticism style’s poetic tradition, then put “how to say” in traditional form to “how to say” in modern form. So, the outcome of the research of styles of literary criticism in resent 30 years from “respect style” to “break style” to “originate style” is a gorgeous movement of the primary rhythm—modern conversion of ancient literary criticism from new period to new century.

叙事视野下的梁启超文艺思想 赵炎秋 湖南师范大学文学院

提要:梁启超的文学思想具有丰富的叙事学内涵。他从启蒙的角度出发,强调小说的作用,提出小说界革命的口号。他从语言文字、叙事技巧和文学中的情感表达方式等方面对文学形式进行了探讨,提出了一些独到的看法。他肯定史传文学,推崇《史记》,并对其特点进行了比较深入的探讨。他注意到了中国诗歌中的写实传统,并对杜甫诗作中的写实诗与半写实诗做了比较深入的分析。这些都有利于叙事文学和叙事思想的发展,丰富了中国近代叙事思想的内涵。

Abstract: There are abundant narrative connotation in Liang Qichao’s literary thoughts. From the point of enlightenment, He emphasize the affection of novel, and advocate the revolution in the field of novel. He study on the literary form, put forward some original point of view. He confirm history literature, approve Shiji, and study on its characters rather deeply. He realize the narrative tradition in Chinese poetry, and study on Du Fu’s narrative poems and half narrative poems. All these are favorable for narrative literature and its development, and enrich the connotation of modern Chinese narrative thought

论墨子的文学观念——兼论孔墨文学观念之异同 王齐洲 华中师范大学

提要:墨子受孔子思想影响,其文学观念中有与孔子文学观念相近的内涵。然而,由于其所处阶级立场不同,核心价值观念有别,对社会现实问题的认识以及对理想社会秩序的憧憬很不一样,因而对文学的本质和功能的认识也就有颇大的差异。墨子在形式上保留了孔子所揭橥的文学概念,却抽掉了这一概念的核心内容——礼乐制度和礼乐文化,将文学变成“出言谈”的手段或工具,大大压缩了孔子文学观念的内涵,但同时增加个人言论创造作为文学的新内容,又使文学的获得了新的发展空间。墨子的文学观念不强调情感和审美,也与孔子的文学观念区别开来。

古典文论研究与艺术类非物质文化遗产的保护 赖力行 湖南师范大学文学院

提要:①艺术类非物质文化遗产有独特的形式美,欣赏它才能保护它;非物质文化遗产的保护,需要社会方方面面的努力和政策的倾斜。其中,让更多的现代人了解进而喜欢古典遗产,让古典无形遗产在今天有更多的人欣赏,使其在中国乃至世界有生存的空间,这是保护非物质文化遗产的治本之策。博物馆式的保护不能长久。时代和文化的变迁使我们很难和非物质文化遗产的内容发生实用关系,但非物质文化遗产自身形式美(比如可看性很强的“绝活”)的吸引,却有可能让我们接近和理解这些遗产。中华民族的艺术类非物质文化遗产(戏曲,古琴,绘画、书法、雕刻、建筑等),在形式的创造和技巧的运用上独具匠心,在长期的实践中形成了各自独特的形式美。非物质文化遗产的感性形式在触动我们的审美感情的同时,必然激起我们了解其中所暗示、传达的本民族精神文化特质的欲望。

②探讨非物质文化遗产形式美的特点,引导欣赏,是古典文艺理论研究的主要目的。非物质文化遗产保护中的不当措施,除了商业意识形态的影响,也有现代人缺乏古典艺术经验的原因。现代人的艺术经验和美学趣味,难以欣赏传统艺术语言的精致细腻、“简而不竭”,及其深厚远韵的形式意味。探讨和传播这方面的知识,古典文艺理论大有作为。古典文艺理论所总结的东西很难解释当代的文艺现象和文学经验,却最适合发掘中华古典艺术的审美价值、文化特质,并彰显其在现代多元社会中的参照价值,确保民族艺术和文化的精神特性代代相传。古代文论对现代文学艺术的“失语”不能苛求,对传统艺术和审美经验的“失语”(包括深度研究和普及传播)却是失职。对非物质文化遗产的深度研究和古典艺术经验的普及传播,除了要有现代意识,更重要的做到两个打通:文史哲的打通;各种艺术门类的打通。

古代文论自身也要像非物质文化遗产一样来保护。全球化语境中,对中华古典文论的独特性要有足够认识,在思维方式、术语范畴、深层文化价值等方面,古典文论与以西方文论为主的现代文论都存在巨大的、不可融合的差异。仅举文论话语为例,将古代文论多义的单音词转化为现代汉语的趋向单义的双音词,就会造成丰富语义的失落,缩小接受理解的空间,减低欣赏的兴趣。

古代文论现代化之审思 周兴陆 复旦大学中文系

提要:本文考察古代文论进入20世纪文化思想的历史进程,认为古代文论与现代文论之间并非“断裂”的关系,而是“古代”文论通过不断调整它丰富的姿态跻身于“现代”思想,传统的“性灵”说与现代的人性论文学观、传统的经世致用文学思想与现代的革命文学观念都具有紧密的内在联系。本文阐述了百年古文论研究的“以西释中”模式,以及学术界对这种阐释模式的思想警觉。最后提出,在建设个性化、多样化的中国文论中,应该提倡“逆向性探求”,传统文论与现代文论应该多元互补:现代思想中缺失的部分,可以从传统中补救完整;现代思想中偏颇的倾向,可以通过某些传统的恢复而予以矫正。就中国传统文论研究来说,其深层次的问题,应该是重新思考中国文论的人学问题。研究传统文论,应该以重建源于民族文化精神传统的价值体系、人格信念、人生理想为旨归。

新时期以来古代文论研究中存在的几个主要问题 黄念然 华中师范大学文学院

提要:本文在撰写《二十世纪中国古代文学研究史·文论卷》的基础上,就新时期以来中国古代文论研究中的话语形态、话语生产、话语格局等问题进行了初步的梳理和反思。

新时期以来中国古代文论研究有三种基本的话语形态:理论阐释型话语、历史考辨型话语和意识形态型话语。

理论阐释型研究常见的弊病是:就理论谈理论,既缺少形而下的文学史实、事实的有力支撑,又缺少形而上的审美感悟或哲性思辨的强力渗透,不能表现出理论本身的超越性特质,也降低了理论的启示功能。因此,综合性阐释平台的建立十分重要。这种综合性阐释平台的基本支柱应当是:在理论与现象相互支撑的基础上,透过对理论现象之生成事实的分析来加强理论阐发的历史实感;透过对理论主体之可能性意旨的洞察来拓展理论阐发的现有空间;通过对现有理论体制的不断反思来获得理论的自我更新能力;以一种泛学科联姻的理论阐释格局来打破单一理论阐释模式所设立的硬性边界;在一种既具有批评穿透力又兼具历史有效性的逻辑表述中去释放理论话语本身应当具有的活力。

新时期以来历史考辨研究的实绩表明,青年学者的历史考辨能力固然还亟待提高,学界自身也有义务纠正那些只重理论阐发而轻视历史考辨的偏颇的研究趣味甚至不良学风。同时,新时期以来,学界一定程度上形成了理论阐发型研究和历史考辨型研究之间的对立。应当将学术价值、学术逻辑和学术目的三者区别开来,就学术价值而言,理论阐发型研究和历史考辨型研究不分轩轾;从学术逻辑上讲,历史考辨型研究应当优先于理论阐发型研究,因为,从学科发生学的角度看,古代文论的理论学科属性是依附于其历史学科属性的,历史本真面貌没有搞清楚就进行理论阐发,往往成了空疏之学,因为思想的活力只有在对传统的准确理解和不断发掘中才能获取本原性的力量;从学术目的来看,历史考辨最终是为了抵达理论核心,并准确敞现理论内涵,理论阐发型研究应是第一位的。

建国后至新时期,古代文论研究中的意识形态话语具有以下几种主要特征:1、群体无意识性。2、二元对立模式。3、话语主体的双面性。新时期以来,意识形态的运作开始隐蔽化、深层化、复杂化、综合化,并产生了一些新的特征。其表征是政治斗争、阶级斗争、路线斗争的基本法则逐渐淡隐,但以此而形成的二元对立模式仍然存在,并被整合到以“文化”为总体研究对象的各种研究模式中。

学者的知识结构是制约古代文论研究的最重要的因素之一。拥有完善且具备动态开放性知识结构的生产群体将是古代文论学术话语能始终处于良性生产态势的必要条件之一,也是古代文论学术研究接力正常进行的希望之所在。早期古代文论研究者往往学贯中西,知识结构完整,故而能从容出入历史考证与理论阐释之间。“文革”期间,研究者们运用马克思主义的基本理论解释古代文论中的各种现象或问题往往较为深刻,在运用社会历史批评方法、阶级分析方法、辩证法时常能得心应手,但受“大一统”时期政治意识形态的制约,知识结构的单一化特点表现得很明显,常常表现出线性因果思维和二元对立思维模式。九十年代以后成长起来的一批人才,在思维方式上具有更大的灵活性,传统因袭更少,学术观念更新,但对文学史熟悉程度不够,在商品经济的冲击下,心性定力较差,对内在学识的养成与积累不太关注,学术使命感也不如前几代人强烈。在古代文论研究中,一种与文学其它部类分隔开来的“学术圈子”正在形成,“你死我自然活”的零合博奕逻辑初显苗头。此外,学术权力机构对古代文论研究的控制同样不可轻视。

从地缘政治与学术研究的关联看,新时期以来的中国古代文论研究已基本形成了由中国大陆、台港地区、日韩、俄苏与欧美等不同地域或群体组成的多元化的研究格局。不同文化区域中独具特色的文化传统、思维模式以及话语表述方式已经逐步融入到古代文论研究中来,如何协调文化互融性与文化独特性的矛盾,实现跨文化理解,是摆在古代文论研究者面前的一个新课题。

Abstract: The thesis is based on my monograph The 20th Century Research History of Classical Chinese Literature: Volume of the Literary Criticism. It focuses and reflects on the configurations, manufactures and structures of the discourses of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism research in Post-Mao Era.

There lie three basic configurations of the discourses of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism research in Post-Mao Era, theoretical explanation discourses, historical examination discourses and ideological discourses.

It is the familiar malady of the theoretical explanation discourse that it merely considers theories as their stand and is wanting in both concrete literature historical facts and superorganic aesthetic realization or philosophic consideration, therefore it cannot put up surmounting particularity of theories and depresses the inspiring function of theories. Hence, it is very important to construct an integrated platform for explanation. The mainstays of the platform should be following rules. First, to reinforce the historical sense of theoretical explanations by analyzing the facts which generate theories and their supporting phenomenon. Second, to develop existing spaces of theoretical explanation by penetrating possible intentions of theories. Third, to make theories renovated by themselves by continual reflections on existing theory system. Fourth, to break down the rigid boundary set by single-theory explanation pattern by setting up an interdisciplinary-theory explanation pattern. Fifth, to release the energy that the theoretical discourses ought to have by a kind of logical statements possessing both the penetrating power of criticism and historical validity.

The historical examination researches in Post-Mao Era show that on the one hand, the historical examination competence of young scholars need to be enhanced, on the other hand, the academia is in duty bound to correct the wrong researching tendency of paying much attention to theoretical explanation rather than historical examination. What is more serious is that the confliction between theoretical explanation and historical examination researches has emerged. We should part the values, logics and aims of learning from each other. Theoretical explanation and historical examination researches are of equal values of learning. However, the latter ought to take precedence of the former in logics of learning because the theoretical property of the discipline of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism leeches on to its historical property. On the viewpoint of the aim of learning, historical examination leads to the core of theories eventually, therefore theoretical explanation researches ought to be of greatest importance.

The ideological discourses of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism research in Mao Era had following main characteristics. 1. Collective Unconsciousness. 2. Opposite Mode. 3.Two-faces property of discourse subjects. Since Post-Mao era, ideological uses have been more and more covert, deep-rooted, complicated and colligated. Its token is that the main rules of political, classes and routes fights have been fading, however the opposite mode still exists and is conformed into various researching modes aiming to “cultures”.

The knowledge structure of scholars is the most important factor that can condition Classical Chinese Literary Criticism research. A group of scholars which has perfect and dynamic-open knowledge structure is one of the necessary conditions to keep the academic discourses of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism be in good development tendency. The former researchers of Classical Chinese Literary Criticism always had good knowledge both in Chinese and Western cultures, therefore, they could had good command in both historical examination and theoretical explanation. During “the cultural revolution”, when the researchers used the Marxist theoretical explanation to do Classical Chinese Literary Criticism, they did well-done jobs with their faculties. The only fault of their researches was the simple cause and effect and opposite mode thinking patterns caused by the politics ideological environment. Scholars emerged after 1990’ s are much more flexible and creative than their teachers in thinking. However, they are not as familiar with the literary history as their teachers and have less mission feelings. Kind of academic circles are coming into being. Fight to be or wait to be killed is the coming logics among the circles. In addition, the controls from academic authority instructions are a force to be reckoned with.

On the point of geographical politics and the connection between academic researches, the multimember researching pattern comprising the groups of scholars from the Mainland, Taiwan , Hong Kong , Japan , Korea , Russia , Europe and North America etc. has formed. The particular cultural traditions, thinking models and discourse manners have blended into the Classical Chinese literary criticism researches. It is a new challenging task to harmonize the conflicts between cultures and to achieve cross-cultural understanding.

古代文论“现代转换”之我见 张帆 沈阳师范大学文学院

提要:古代文论的“现代转换”是学术界长时间以来一直在讨论的一个重要问题。学界至今历来对这一问题看法不一,但其中比较主流的观点是认为古代文论不仅可以进行“现代转换”,而且这种转换也是很必要的。理论界讨论的焦点问题在于是对古代文论进行一种全方位、系统化的转换,还是要有选择的转换,这些看法都有一定的道理。但笔者认为,古代文论“现代转换”这个命题本身,就其转换的可行性角度来说,似乎还有值得商榷的地方。

首先,我国古代文论源于以诗文为正宗的古代文学。所以在古代文论是以系统性、理论性很强的诗论和文论为核心的。所以它不能适应今天以小说为主的文学创作。语境的丧失使古代文论失去了实践的意义。

其次,我国的新文学无论是技巧、方法还是形式、观念等诸方面都是来自于西方。并且这些正是建构于对古典文学、文艺理论的拆解的基础之上的。这样就使古代文论之于当今的文学,无论是创作还是批评,都不再具有指导性意义。

最后,从民族文化心理角度上来说,许多人认为目前我国文学的诸方面都主要来自西方,于是便产生了一种自卑心理。他们感到自己处于弱势地位,所以就去追溯昔日的辉煌,执著于古代文论的“现代转换”。其实,我国向西方学习,并不是完全照搬,而是无不经过了中国化的改造。在这种狭隘民族心理的驱使下的转换是不必要的。

综上,笔者认为对古代文论实施“现代转换”的意义和可行性均不大。古代文论自有体现其宝贵价值与意义的所在,那就是在对古代文学的发掘、整理及批评方面上。而在时空及环境都已发生巨大变化的今天,它已不能再发挥应有的作用了。如果非要对它作硬性的“转换”,恐怕只会适得其反。我们应该看到,古代文论与现今中国新文学的契合点是天然存在的,而非是用“转换”的方式去求得的。古代文论在今天现实生活中的意义应是一种古典精神、文化的积淀和传承,也应作为当前时代的一种背景存在,而不是要把它强加“转换”来适应本不属于它的时代。

Abstract: The "Modern Transformation" of Chinese classical literature theory is a long time academics have been discussing an important issue. So far scholars on this issue has always mixed views, But more mainstream view is that not only can be the inspiration for "modern conversion" Such change is very necessary. Theoretical discussion of the issue in the Ancient therefore conducted a comprehensive, systematic change, or choose to have the conversion, these views have some truth in it. In my opinion, however, the inspiration of The "Modern Transformation" of the proposition itself, it converts the feasibility point of view, There seems to be worthy of consideration.

First of all, Chinese classical literature theory comes from a poem of authentic ancient literature. So is the classical systemic, highly theoretical On the Poetics of Culture core. Therefore, it can not meet today's fiction-based literary creations. Context so that the loss of practice Ancient lost significance.

Secondly, China's new literature both techniques, methods or forms, and other aspects of the concept are from the West. Construction and these are precisely right in the classical literature, literary theory of dismantling the foundation. As a result, in today's Ancient literature, creative or both, were no longer guiding significance.

Finally, from a psychological perspective of the national culture, many people think that our literary aspects are mainly from the West, So we have a kind of inferiority complex. They feel themselves in vulnerable positions, went back past glory, focusing on the inspiration of the "Modern Transformation." In fact, our learning from the west, is not completely copy, but all of China after the transformation. In this narrow nationalism driven psychological change is unnecessary.

In summary, my viewpoint on the implementation of The "Modern Transformation" of Chinese classical literature theory of the significance and feasibility unlikely. Ancient own reflected its value and significance of the location, which is right in ancient literature to explore, collate and criticized aspects. And the environment in terms of time and have been undergoing tremendous changes, it can no longer play its due role. If it has to dictate it " transformation " that will lead to just the opposite. We should see that with the present-day Chinese Ancient Literature is a natural fit there. instead of " transformation " approach sought by. Ancient today's realities of life should be a classical spirit, cultural heritage and the heritage, It should also serve as the current era of the existence of a background, We are not saying it imposed "transformation" to adapt to the exclusion of its era.

王国维“系统圆照”文学研究方法的内涵及其启示 欧阳文风 中南大学文学院

提要:“系统圆照”是王国维最重要的一种文学研究方法。其内涵包括两个层面:①文学从属于一个总的学术系统中,各学科之间沟通会同,相与阐发,文学研究可以运用相关学科的理论和方法来对文学进行多方位的体悟和省察;②学术“无新旧”,“无中西”,“无有用无用”,应该剔除古今、中西以及有用无用二元对立的思维模式,在一个超时间、超地域、超学科的大系统中,对文学进行全面的观照。王国维的《宋元戏曲史》成功地演绎了这一方法。“系统圆照”方法对现代诗学研究的启示是多方面的,深入理解其内涵,对我们在利用古代诗学、借鉴西方诗学以及进行跨学科研究中遇到的一些长期纠缠不清的问题,能够提供一种全新的认识。

语言分析与批评的中国诗学研究 韩军 华中师范大学文学院

提要:为了反驳西方关于汉语“象形化”的偏见,并使中国诗学摆脱印象式、评点式的形态而形成客观严肃的面目,刘若愚借鉴西方新批评等文论话语,细致入微地展开中国诗歌语言的形式分析。在借鉴、运用燕卜荪等人的语义分析方法的过程中,刘若愚没有拘守于现成的理论模式,而是将语言问题同社会背景、文化传统联系起来,从而充分凸显了中国诗歌语言的特色。他认为,语言分析与中国诗学的观念性探讨一道,正可以为中国诗学研究提供可靠的方法论意义上的基础。而他在批评的视野中结合中国传统语言资源及西方语言分析方法的努力,也必然有助于我们在更根本的层面上,思考中国文论研究的方式与途径。

从文史关系看文学的独立性——刘知几之文史关系论 王庆 西华大学人文学院

提要:刘知几所著的《史通》是中国第一部史学理论著作,第一次对唐以前的史学进行了全面的批评和总结。我们以文艺美学的视角研究《史通》,发现刘知几鉴于南北朝文风的影响,非常反对以文入史,因此他很注重文史关系的辨析,从一个侧面也为文学的独立性作出了贡献。

Abstract: “Shi Tong” is the first Chinese history theory work. It did a general criticism and made a roundly summarization of the history before Tang Dynasty for the first time. In the view of literary aesthetics, the discovery can be obtained that Liu Zhiji, influenced by the writing style of North and South Dynasty, extraordinarily opposed the way that writes historical books in a way of literary writing, therefore, he did a lot of work to distinguish literature from history. What he did devoted to the independence of literature.

范畴及其边界 姜金元 中南财经政法大学新闻与文化传播学院中文系

提要:近百年来的中国古代文论研究,改变了中国传统的文论形态和批评方式,其中的成败得失是一个值得回味的问题。在近百年的文论研究方法中,范畴研究无疑是最重要的方法。作为一种方法论的自觉,范畴研究与现代科学精神和科学方法的大力提倡相关联。经过百年的研究与拓展,范畴研究取得了不菲的实绩,但同时也存在一些值得思考的问题,其中首要的问题是范畴研究适应性问题或范畴研究的边界问题。

“范畴”最初是指对词语的分类而得到的东西。世界原本是杂乱无章的,但可以通过分析、归纳、判断对其进行分类和定位。借助范畴,无边无际、混沌的世界开始以一种清晰的形式呈现在我们面前。人类的思维活动和实践活动离不开范畴的标记和指引。西方文化历来重视理性精神,强调对事物的分类,追求语词和概念的明晰,范畴在西方思维活动中居于核心地位。中国古代虽然也有“名言”研究,但以诗性为特征的中国古代思维活动重视超出名言之外的领悟,“名言”或“范畴”在中国传统思想活动并未被视为核心。在中国古代文论领域,一个语词的使用具有较大的灵活性和随意性,也往往缺乏清晰的界定。这也是现代转换过程中古代文论让人诟病的原因之一,它也构成了近百年古代文论范畴研究的动力。

范畴在标记世界和规范人的认识,使世界变得有序,使认识清晰化的同时,也遮蔽着世界,限定着人的认识。从理论上讲,范畴只不过是人与世界的关系中对象化的世界,即呈现在外的显性的一小部分;此外或此下还隐含着一个更丰富的、难以言传的世界。在对象性的认识领域,在被科学划定的有限的、显性的领域之内,范畴研究是有效的;超过这个领域,范畴研究便呈现出它的局促来。胡塞尔认为,逻辑范畴只能在谓词判断的范围内作为规定性的部分来谈论,但是,所有范畴和范畴形式都是在前谓词综合的基础上建构起来的,前谓词的知觉体验是对象性的认识范畴的基础。胡塞尔的“生活世界”就是这样一个前谓词、前范畴的尚未分化的“灌木丛”。从某种意义上讲,对象化、主题化、符号化的范畴,只揭示了生活世界的一小部分。

中国古代文论的本体是“道”以及与“道”密切相关联的“象”。这是一个未分化的世界,居于名言、范畴之前、之外的领域。中国古代的主要文本——诗歌,其理想的状态也并非名言、范畴所能准确把握的。所以,过分倚重范畴研究,也许难以真正切近中国古代文论本身。

Abstract: In recent centuries China ancient literature criticism study, changed the Chinese tradition article to discuss the shape and the criticism way, success or failure is one worthing the aftertaste the question. Discusses in the research technique in the near hundred years, the category research is without doubt the most important method. As one methodology determination, the category research and the modern spirit of science and the scientific method advocate is connected. After hundred years research and the development, the category research has obtained the uncommon actual accomplishments, but simultaneously also has the problem which some are worth pondering, in which most important question is the category research compatible question or the category research boundary problem.

"Category" is at first refers to the thing which obtains to the words and expressions classification. The world is originally chaotic, but may through the analysis, the induction, the judgment carry on the classification and the localization to it. With the aid of the category, limitless, the chaos world starts one clear form to present in front of us. Humanity's thinking activity and practice cannot leave the words and expressions, the category mark and the direction. The western culture always takes the rational spirit, emphasizes to the thing classification, the pursue word and the concept definition, thus, the category resides in the core in West thinking activity the status. Although China ancient times also had " Famous saying"; the famous saying; research, but ancient times the thinking activity took take the poem as characteristic China to surpass outside the famous saying the comprehension, thus, " Famous saying"; or said " category"; is regarded by no means as in the Chinese tradition thought activity the core. Ancient times the article discussed the domain in China, a word use had the big flexibility and the capriciousness, also often lacked the clear boundary to decide. This also is one of reasons which the person denounced in modern switching process Middle Ages generation of literature criticism, it also constituted the near hundred year ancient times article to discuss the category research the power.

Category in mark world and standard person's understanding, causes the world to become the order, causes understanding clear at the same time, It is also camouflaging the world, is defining human's understanding. Theoretically speaking, the category is the human and in the world relations the object world, namely presents in an outside dominant small part, In addition or under this is also concealing the world which richer, explains with difficulty. In the objectivity understanding domain, in is delimited limitedly by the science, in the dominant domain, the category research is effective; however, the exceeding domain, the category research presents it to be cramped. Husserl thought the logical category only can discuss in the predicate judgment scope as the regulated part. But all categories and the category form all is constructs in the front predicate synthesis foundation, the first predicate consciousness experience is the objectivity understanding category foundation. Husserl's “life world ”is the shrubbery which this kind of front predicate, front the category, not yet splits up. In a sense, the object, the subject, the signifying category, it only explained a life world appearance small part.

China ancient times the main body of literature criticism was "Taoism"; as well as "Aspect" relative with "Taoism". This is an undifferentiation world, is resides in front of the famous saying, the category, beside domain. China ancient times domain of text - - poetry, its ideal condition also by no means famous saying, the category could grasp accurately. Therefore, has a high opinion of excessively the category research, perhaps with difficulty truly was close to China ancient times the article to discuss itself.

启夕秀于未振——中国古代少数民族文论研究述评及其构建 贾一心 青海民族学院文学院

提要:中华民族是在长期历史发展中由众多民族共同发展、逐渐形成的民族集合体,其文化的多元与整一,也具体的体现在中华民族文艺理论方面,是汉族和55个少数民族共同创造的与埃及、印度、希腊文学艺术理论比肩而立的世界文学艺术瑰宝。

1980115郭绍虞先生在《人民日报》发表题为《建立具有中国民族特点的马克思主义文艺理论》。他说“我们要建立具有中国民族特点的马克思主义文艺理论,还应该扩大我们的研究领域,更多地发现材料。过去,由于正统观念的影响,我们研究批评史,往往是较多地注意文论、诗论,而较少注意小说、戏曲的理论;较多注意上古、中古的理论,而较少注意近代的理论;较多注意汉民族的理论而较少注意兄弟民族的理论。这种情况,近年来已有所改变,它表现为专门研究小说、戏剧理论和近代文论的同志增多了,兄弟民族的文艺理论也有所发现。但是,总的说来,这方面的工作还做得不够,还需要有人去进一步从事这方面的研究。”他热切呼吁“应该从多方面去开拓古代文艺理论研究的领域,把我们理论遗产的珍贵品发掘出来,搜集起来,对它们进行科学的研究,以丰富世界和人类文艺理论的宝库。”此后中国古代少数民族文艺理论成果接踵而至,取得了可喜的进展,特别是《中国少数民族文艺理论集成》这本综合性文献的出版,将中国古代少数民族文艺理论的研究推进到一个新的历史时期。

然而,我们也看到,尽管如此,对中国古代少数民族文艺理论和美学的研究毕竟势单力薄、置于边缘,正如有的学者所说:“人们对汉族美学是关注有加却对少数民族美学留心不够,后者处于不但‘失语’而且简直就是整体‘失落’。”如今面对文化多元论和文化一体论、中心与边缘激烈交锋的当下语境,重建中国本色文论话语、复兴民族美学,成为中国文学艺术界的学术共识。为此我们必须延续中国传统优秀文化的血脉,聚焦视阈到地域辽阔、历史悠久和文化多彩的中国少数民族文学艺术苑囿,对中国古代少数民族文艺理论的性质范围、别具一格的理论体系和独有的理论范畴等作更深入的研究,为发展、丰富和充实“中国作风中国气派”的文学和美学理论奋起直追。

文学研究领域中传播学理论运用初探——以中国古代文学研究为例

柯卓英 西安石油大学人文学院

提要:运用传播学理论研究中国古代文学,既是传播学的本土化研究,也是古代文学的跨学科研究,同时是文艺理论研究领域中值得探讨的新问题。古代文学的传播学研究范围涉及到诗词曲、小说、散文、戏剧、文学理论等各个方面,呈现出较为活跃的态势。在研究中,诗与小说传播的研究成果相对较多;其次是词与戏剧,博士论文的选题以明清小说与戏剧为多,其他则相对很少。从文学体裁研究而论,诗歌传播研究以唐代诗人诗歌为主,小说研究主要集中在明清小说传播研究方面,词主要以宋代著名词人、词与歌妓的传播研究为主,戏剧方面以元明清戏剧传播研究为主,散文、散曲的传播研究相对处于冷落阶段。其研究思路主要可归纳为六种:第一是体裁分类传播研究,第二是名家作品传播研究,第三是传播方式研究,第四是跨文化传播研究,第五是新闻传播研究,第六是版本的传播研究。

虽然诗词与小说戏剧等的传播研究取得了一定的成绩,但与古代文学研究的盛况和成果相比依然相差悬殊,可开拓的研究领域极为广博,有待于进一步挖掘、整理与探索。第一是古代文学传播史研究。第二是传播媒介的研究,目前尚没有人专门研究传播媒介对古代文学繁荣的重要作用。第三是目前已研究的成果普遍存在概念化、浮泛化现象,缺乏深入系统的研究,有待于理论化、系统化、深入化。第四是文学作品的接受与反馈研究。第五是跨文化传播研究,这方面的成果涉猎范围广泛,相对不集中,有待于进一步专题化、系统化地研究。

文学传播学研究要求研究者既要有系统的传播学基础理论知识,又要有深厚的文艺理论功底。就中国古代文学而言,其传播学研究领域广泛,大有可为。无论是从历史发展的轨迹来研究古代文学的传播历程、从文学体裁的类型来研究一种文学形式的传播,还是从作家作品的接受与反馈以及跨文化传播等角度进行研究,中国古代文学的传播学研究都具有旺盛的生命力,需要研究者不断地为传播学的本土化研究,为古代文学的跨学科研究,为文艺理论新发展进行深入的探索。

Abstract :Studying Chinese ancient literature by communication theory is the localization of communication study as well as the interdisciplinary research of ancient literature, which is also a new problem worth exploring in literary theory research field. Ancient Literature communication research covers the following aspects: poetry, fictions, essays, dramas, literary theory and other aspects, showing a more active developing trend. Among those studies, more research results are about poetry and fiction communication, followed by Ci and drama. More Doctoral dissertations have focused on Qing Dynasty novels and dramas, while others are relatively few. In terms of Literary genre, the study on the dissemination of poetry was mainly about Tang Dynasty poetry; novels mainly concentrating on the Ming and Qing Dynasties; Ci mainly on Song famous Ci, Geisha words; drama mainly focusing on Ming and Qing . The research of essays and Sanqu dissemination was relatively few. The main researches can be summed up in following six types: studies on genre classification; on dissemination of famous works, on modes of transmission, on cross-cultural communication, on news media and edition dissemination.

Although the dissemination research had made some achievements on poetry, fictions, dramas and so on, however, it is still a pioneering research field and worth exploring further compared to the great results of ancient literature. The worthy studying aspects are as follows: history of ancient literature; Communication media (up to now no one has been specializing in the study of the important role of media and prosperity on ancient literature); the results of the study have been widespread conceptualization, too abstract, and lack of in-depth and systematic research; study on the acceptance and feedback of literature; cross-cultural communication research.

The literature dissemination study requests researcher to have both systematical theory knowledge in communications, and profound cultural theoretical knowledge. As Chinese Ancient Literature is concerned, it has an extensive research scope and bright prospects. We may examine the spread of ancient literature course from the track of historical development, or from the literary genre to study the type of a literary form of communication, or from the acceptance and feedback of writers’ works or from the aspect of cross-cultural dissemination. The dissemination study in Ancient Chinese literature has great vitality, which needs researchers to explore further for the localization study of ancient literature and interdisciplinary research.

作为学科的“中国文论”刍议 牛月明 中国海洋大学文学院

提要:“中国文论”既可以是一个普泛的名词,也可以是一个专用的范畴,还可以是一个有待建构的学科。作为一个普泛的名词,大家对“中国文论”有各种不同的理解。作为专用的范畴“中国文论”,有几个必须考虑的因素:①文论的语种:表述语言是中文(主要指汉语)还是外文,②文论的问题意识:表述的是普泛性问题还是时代性或区域性的问题,是中国的问题还是外国的问题,有无全球视野和可沟通、可对话性③知识领域和研究对象的划界、根本问题的提问的依据:是中国的历史与现实还是外国的理论。④普泛性问题提问与解答中,文论关键词、核心范畴的根源与背景,西方文论话语和中国文论话语的不同分量。从逻辑上讲,由于这几个因素的不同组合和组合时的不同偏重,就可能产生众多个性差异显著的“中国文论”。从历史上看,也有几种不可忽视的“中国文论”的现实存在:

一种是中文(主要指汉语)表述的、研究普泛性问题的、与西方文论“互文见义”的、与中国古代文论“对待立义”的文论;一种是研究中国古代或现当代特定问题的、与西方文论“互文见义”的、与中国古代文论“对待立义”的文论;第三种是外文表述的,具有中国问题意识的,在关键词、核心范畴的使用上与中国古代文论“互文见义”、与西方文论“对待立义”,在知识领域和研究对象的划界、根本问题的提问上以外国的理论为依据的文论;第四种是中文(主要指汉语)表述的、研究普泛性问题的、在核心范畴的使用上承接中国古代文论话语的、在知识领域和研究对象的划界上受外国理论的影响但坚持以中国的历史为依据的文论。

作为有待进行学科建构的“中国文论”,应该是不同于以上四种“中国文论”的第五种:它是中文(主要指汉语)表述的,具有全球视野和可沟通、可对话性,仍然不排除在比较视野、某些具体问题上以西方智慧为借镜。但它在问题意识、知识领域、核心话语上是与西方文论“对待立义”、与中国传统文论“互文见义”的文论。

谋求体验与阐释相统一的中国古代文论研究之路 彭维锋 中国劳动关系学院文化传播系

提要:对待中国古代文论的现代转换,有三种思路,“民族”的、“科学”的与“阐释”的。对古代文论的阐释联系着对整个中国古代文化的阐释,而对古代文化的阐释又关联着人类生存的意义问题。古代文论要借鉴西方文论的经验和规则,革除主观印象式批评的缺陷,保留重感发体验的传统,延续曾一度中断的民族精神的血脉,只有如此,才能重新激活古文论的诸种因子,使我们的古文论研究获得生生不已的力量。

Abstract: There are three kinds of way towards the modern translation about the Chinese ancient literary theory, that’s the ethical, the scientific and the interpretative. If the Chinese ancient literary theory wants to get a rapid development, it must learn the rules of the overseas, and keeping with the tradition of the living experience.

“五·四”时期胡适的科学思想和文学批评 王济民 华中师范大学文学院

提要:崇扬科学是胡适基本的思想主张。“五•四”时期,胡适尤其通过他的学术研究,比如中国传统文学研究,来倡导客观理性的科学精神和思想方法。胡适对传统文学的研究包含重要的文学批评。连同胡适的文学革命主张和其他专门的文学批评整体来看,其文学批评具有相应的科学品格,可以说是一种科学批评。胡适的文学批评,强调文学形式,在具体的批评实践中,注重语言、叙事和结构方面;同时也讲内容,并进行客观的阐释。内容阐释注意作者和时代问题。进而,在形式和内容分析的基础上作出公正评价。这有其体系。胡适的文学批评同他的科学思想是一致的,可以说,是他的科学思想的一部分。胡适对文学的科学批评,对未来的中国文学批评不无意义。

Abstract: Advocating science is Hu shi’s basic thought.In the May Fourth Period,Hushi advocated the scientific mode of thought through academic research ,especially chinese traditional literature research.There is the important literature criticism in the literature research.Hu shi proposed literature revolution and criticized new literature.General speaking, Hushi’s literatuye criticism have scientific character. paying attention to language,narrative and structure of woks,it emphacized the form of literature.Meanwhile,it discussed and explained the content of literature objectively.On these basis,it evaluated literature works impartially.There is a unite bettwen Hushi’s thought of science and his literature criticism.Hu shi’s scientific literature criticim should infulunence future Chinese literature criticism.

德里达版本的《哈姆莱特》或解构版本的马克思主义——解读德里达《马克思的幽灵们》

郭军 北京语言文化大学

提要:德里达在对马克思主义沉默多年后,于1993年公开谈论马克思主义,并于1994年出版了《马克思的幽灵们》,但这是一种解构版本的马克思主义,旨在激活马克思主义批判和变革世界的精神,将马克思主义从极权主义、教条主义的阐释中解脱出来,变成一种不断革命论和未来学。他将这种精神的特征阐释为“徘徊的幽灵”。对此,他是借用《哈姆莱特》中鬼魂和与鬼魂打交道的几个人物的意象来展开其论述的,通过对莎士比亚的作品与马克思的几部经典著作的交错解读,他阐述了对马克思的精神、对欧洲知识分子的责任、对当下时代、特别是对马克思关于“变革时代”的指令的独到思索,回答了全球化语境中“马克思主义何处去”和“马克思主义衰亡了吗”的问题。

Abstract: Jacques Derrida’s specters of marx: the state of the debt, the work of morning, and the new international published in 1994 is his deconstructive version of Marxism by which he seeks to preserve the critical dimension of Marxism in resistance to dogmatic Marxism and to the prediction for the end of Marxism. Through his ingenious cross reading between Shakespeare’s and Marx’s works he produces insightful reflections on the spirit of Marx, the responsibility of European intellectuals and especially the nature ,the validity and the urgency of Marx’s injunction to change the world in an age of capitalist globalization.

文化研究与文本细读——兼谈“新批评”在当前的借鉴意义

李卫华 河北师范大学文学学院

提要:20世纪80年代以后从西方传入中国的文化研究,是一种贯穿了后现代主义文化思想、体现了后现代主义文化诉求的学术研究。文化研究被引入中国的文艺学界,对于中国的文艺学建设和发展确实起到了一定的积极作用:第一,通过跨学科的研究方法,打破了学科之间人为的藩篱,扩大了文学研究的领域。第二,增强了文学研究中的批判意识。但是,随着文化研究的引入,文学研究中出现的一些问题也不容忽视。首先是文学研究对象的无限泛化,其次是文学研究中对于审美价值的忽略和放弃。

正是在这一方面,“新批评”为我们提供了可资借鉴的做法。国内文艺学界对“新批评”的误解一直很多,特别是“新批评”的“细读”一直被人误解为封闭的、形式主义的阅读。其实,细读关注文本,但并不是封闭在文本之中;细读关注“形式”,但这里的“形式”并非只是传递内容的技巧,而是呈现为有机整体的文学作品。“新批评”向来反对割裂文学与社会生活的关系,也反对割裂具体的文学作品与其文化背景之间的关系。但“新批评”对文化问题的关注有两个特点:第一,以文学文本为出发点;第二,以作品的审美价值为研究目标。以“新批评”的中坚人物布鲁克斯和华伦共同编著的《小说鉴赏》中对霍桑的《年轻的布朗大爷》的分析为例,我们不难发现,布鲁克斯和华伦并不是把这篇小说作为清教文化或反清教文化的一个例证,借这篇小说去分析清教教义。他们虽然认为,了解清教教义是理解这篇小说的基础,但他们更关注的是这篇小说的审美价值。换言之,“新批评”不是把文学作品作为文化研究的例证,用文学作品来说明某种文化;而是用文化背景来说明文学作品,分析文学作品的审美价值。“新批评”的细读并不反对研究文化;它所反对的,只是对文学文本的脱离和对审美价值的忽视。

借鉴“新批评”的做法,联系我国当前文艺学的实际,或许可以对文学研究与文化研究的关系做如下概括:第一,文学研究和文化研究是两种不同的学术研究,它们不能互相替代,但可以互相借鉴;第二,文学属于文化,因此文学研究离不开对文化的分析;第三,文学研究必须以文本细读为基础,并以审美价值为旨归。

Abstract: The “Cultural Studies” introduced from the west in the 1980s is a kind of academic study that runs through the postmodernism cultural ideas. In fact, the Cultural Studies has promoted the progress of the literary theories in China, but it also brings some problems. The main progress made by the Cultural Studies has two aspects: one is breaking the man-made hedge between the subjects, expanding the field of the literary studies; the other is boosting up the critical consciousness in the literary studies. The main problems brought by the Cultural Studies are tw one is the overflow of the subject of the literary studies; the other is the lack of close reading and the neglect of the aesthetic value.

The New Criticism as a literary critical theory, its most important contribution is the stress on the aesthetic value and close reading. So it can help us to solve the problems. In China, the “close reading” of the New Criticism is misread to be a formalistic reading. In fact, the “close reading” focuses on the “form”, but this “form” is not only the skills to transform the “content” of the text, it is just the text itself as an organic whole. The New Criticism always opposes dissevering the relationship between the literature and the life, it also apposes dissevering the relationship between the text and its cultural background. But the New Criticism has two characteristics in the attention of culture: one is starting from the text, the other is aiming at the aesthetic value of the text. For example, the analysis of Young Goodman Brown in the Understanding Fiction, we can discover that Brooks and Warren do not treat this novel as an example of Puritanism or Anti-Puritanism, their target is not to analyses the doxy of the Puritanism. Although understanding the doxy of the Puritanism is the base to understanding the novel, Brooks and Warren still focuses on the aesthetic value of the text. That is, The New Criticism does not treat the literary text as an example of the Cultural Studies, but treat the culture as the background of the text. The “close reading” of the New Criticism dose not oppose the study of culture, it just opposes the neglect of the text and its aesthetic value.

Using the way of The New Criticism as reference, contacting the fact of the world of literature and art in China nowadays, perhaps we can gather up the relationship between the Cultural Studies and the literary studies as follows: First, the Cultural Studies and the literary studies are two different academic field, they can use each otherbut can not substitute each other. Second, literature is a representation of culture, so literary study can not depart from the study of culture. Third, literary study must base on the close reading of the text, and aim at the aesthetic value of the text.

新时期蒋孔阳的文学批评理论和实践 张玉能 华中师范大学文学院

提要:在新时期的文艺学发展之中,蒋孔阳先生作为美学家和文艺理论家对文学批评作出了杰出的贡献:在理论上,他把文学批评提升到形而上的美学高度,继承和发展了马克思主义的历史的和美学的相统一的文学批评,明确了美学的批评标准,把文学批评建立在文学欣赏的基础上,构建了形而上与形而下相统一的文学批评模式;在实践上,他亲身进行文学批评实际活动,树立了文本细读、对话交流、阐释理解的楷模。

Abstract: In the poetics development of New Era, Mr. Jiang Kong-yang as aesthetician and literature criticism contributes to literature criticism outstandingly. In theory, he makes literal criticism advance to metaphysical aesthetic altitude. He inherits and develops Marxism’s literal criticism that unifies history and aesthetics. Then he makes clear aesthetic criticism standard. He makes literal criticism based on literal appreciation and constructs the literal criticism mode that unifies metaphysical and non-metaphysical. In practice, he carries through literal criticism practical activity in person and sets an example of text’s reading carefully, exchanging and understanding in interpretation.

讽刺性模仿与《阿Q正传》表层叙事结构及其文化意义—《阿Q正传》叙事文化学分析之一

张开焱 湖北师范学院中文系

提要:《阿Q正传》表层叙事结构是对中国古代源远流长的史传英雄故事模式的讽刺性模仿,这个英雄故事模式主要由“出生寒微,但少有大志——历经挫折磨难困苦,但在精神上保持对现实处境的优势心理——风云际会,乘势而起——终于建立丰功伟绩,获得荣华富贵”这几个基本环节构成,这个史传英雄故事模式积淀着中国文化对待人生崇苦尊卑贵贱的态度和价值观念,按照这个故事模式组织的无数史传英雄的人生经历,都在证实这种态度和价值观念的有效性。

《阿Q正传》正是对这种史传文学中英雄故事模式的模仿,但它不是认同性模仿而是讽刺性模仿,通过作者滑稽化、贬低化的处理,传统史传文学中崇高伟大的英雄变成了现实生活中卑微滑稽的小丑,史传英雄故事模式中具有特殊人生价值的行为、心理和故事环节呈现出完全不同的可怜可笑的意义。通过对史传文学英雄故事模式的讽刺性模仿,表现出鲁迅对积淀于其中的人生态度和价值观念的否定性认识和评价,从而完成了一次彻底的文化脱冕。

AbstractThe surface narrative structure of True Story of Ah Q is the parody on the universal heroic story mode in Chinese ancient historical biography literature.The heroic story mode is consist of three steps, firstly, the heroes usually are born of beggarliness, but with big ambition in his hard boyhood; secondly, shows outstanding nature, magnanimousness, courage and insight, strength and wise while being experiencing lots of crucifixions; lastly, he grasps a chance and succeed. This heroic story mode shows a kind of praise to the hard life in Chinese ancient culture, when this heroic story mode is handed down through generations in historical biography literatures, it also affirms the life philosophy and values that beggarliness is more valuable than nobleness.

Although the narrative of True Story of Ah Q imitates the heroic story mode in Chinese ancient historical biography literature, it is not the identify-imitation but the parody. The author Luxun usually apply travestying and debasing to deal with the imitated story and dramatis personae, changing the noble into hangdog, the unsophisticated man into sophisticate, the hero into antic, then the special meaningful actions, mentality, plot in the heroic story mode in Chinese ancient historical biography literature show the special and ridiculous significance. The parody in True Story of Ah Q shows Luxun’s negative understanding and comment on the life philosophy and value in the heroic story mode in Chinese ancient historical biography literature.

都市文化学与中国文学研究 刘士林 上海师范大学人文学院

提要:在经济全球化的背景下,依托于规模巨大的人口与空间、先进的生产能力及富可敌国的经济总量、发达的现代交通网络与信息服务系统而形成的都市社会正在成为当代人生存与发展的重要背景。我把“城市化进程”的当代形态称为“都市化进程”。在这个进程中,不是普通的“城镇化”或“城市化”,而是以建设“国际化大都市”或“世界级都市群”为发展目标的“都市化进程”,才构成了当代人类生存与发展最重要与最直接的现实世界。另一方面, “都市化”进程不仅在范围上跨越了民族—国家的边界,超出了一般的经济社会发展领域,也深刻地影响到精神生产、文化消费乃至于审美趣味等方面。在都市化进程中产生的各种文化与精神问题,不仅直接促使了人类传统生活方式与价值观念等方面的转型,同时也为当代中国文学学科提供了一个重要的研究对象与领域。

都市文学艺术与审美文化是都市文化生产与消费过程最直接、最重要的感性表现形态。与传统的模式与形态相比,当代都市文学与审美文化在审美经验、审美趣味、生产技术、消费模式、价值判断、人文理想等方面表现出非常多的新特点。对都市社会中产生的新文学样式、艺术类型、审美思潮等进行深入解读与理性阐释,既可以帮助当代人更好地理解他们的生活现实与内心世界,也可以为他们如何摆脱自身在都市社会中的异化提供重要的人文精神资源。需要特别提示的是,由于传统文学观念与理论体系主要是农业文明和现代工业社会的产物,其固有的概念、范畴、方法与理论体系已无法胜任解释与批判当代都市文学与审美文化的理论任务。在这个意义上,对当代都市文学与审美文化经验的关注与研究,不仅有助于推动传统美学、文艺理论等人文学术的学科更新与系统升级,同时也可以使“文学是人学”这个光辉理念更好地展示其时代意义。

与西方的相关研究主要隶属于社会学、人类学、地理学不同,中国都市文化研究在学术渊源与中国文学学科有密切的关联。以西方的城市社会学与中国文学为双重资源进行都市文化学术研究与理论建设,可以为当代人提供一种具有人文理性内涵的方法、观念、理论与解释框架,用来整理他们在都市空间中混乱的内在生命体验与杂乱的外在社会经验,帮助他们在生命主体与都市社会之间建立真实的社会关系与现实联系,以及在真实的生活世界中去探索实现生命自由与本质力量的道路。

Abstract: Each kind of cultural and spiritual problem produced in the metropolitanization advancement not only promotes the transformation of the aspects of human traditional life styles and values and so on but also provides an important research object and area for the contemporary China literature discipline.

The metropolis literary art and aesthetic culture are the most direct and important perceptual performance form in the production and expense process of metropolis culture. Contemporary metropolis literary and aesthetic culture display extremely many new characteristics in aspects of aesthetic experience, aesthetic interest, production technology, expense pattern, value judgment, and humane ideal etc.

The attention and study of the contemporary metropolis literary and the aesthetic culture experience is helpful to impel the subject renewal and the system promotion of the humane academic research on traditional aesthetics, the theory of literary and art and so on, while it also make this glorious ideal of “ literature is the study of human” show its times meaning.

互联网艺术理论巡礼 黄鸣奋 厦门大学中文系

提要:互联网艺术理论来源于对新媒体的社会探索、技术探索与艺术探索。目前,有关论著已经自成体系,形成了以对“遥在”之认识为基础的社会观、以对互联网技术之潜能为揭示为前提的媒体观,以及以“访问”、“沉浸”、“交互”、“涌现”等为核心范畴的艺术观。国内外相关研究存在一定差距,这种现象有必要引起我们的重视。

数字媒介与新世纪文学转型 欧阳友权 中南大学文学院

提要:以计算机网络为代表的数字媒介,用不可抗拒的技术力量引发了当代中国文学的转型,又约束和限定了这一转型的内涵,为汉语文学的历史演变扮演了“消解”和“启蒙”的双重角色。新媒介使文学的审美构成、表意体制和时空观念产生根本性的变化,也对文学传统的赓续造成伤害甚至异化。前者表现为用平民化的叙事促动文学向“新民间写作”转型,用技术方式赢得更大的艺术自由度,以“词思维”和“自娱娱人”的新理念拉动文学深层观念的调整,为文学体制更新探索了新的路径;后者则表现为技术对文学性的消解,作家主体责任担承的弱化,技术复制导致对文学经典信仰的消褪。新世纪的中国文学仍需秉持人文性的精神原点,自觉履行文学的价值承诺,通过调控引导和主体自律改善文学对技术的依赖,使数字媒介对传统的挑战变成文学获得新生的契机,让新媒介成为新世纪中国文学的强大动力和有效资源。

Abstract: Numerical media, which taking the computer network as representation, are not only conduct to the transformation of contemporary Chinese literature with irresistible strength, but also control and limit connotation of transformation, and play dual roles -- “dissolution” and “illuminate” -- for history of Chinese language literature in the same time. The new medium makes the variation of literary aesthetic form, ideographic system and space time opinion, and also causes injury even dissimilation to literary tradition continuation. The former represents that: promoting literature to “new folk writing” style with democratic narration, winning greater artistic freedom with technical method, and driving adjustment of literature deep idea with the principles of “word thinking” and “to amuse oneself and to the other,” in order to explore a new path for literary system renovation. The latter shows technique dissolution to literature, weakness of writers’ subjective responsibility and technical duplication result in weak belief to literary classics. The new century Chinese literature should still hold on spiritual origin of humanity, aware of promise to literary value consciously. Through conduct and subjective self-control to improve dependence of literature upon techniques, to make the numeral media acquiring newborn chance to literature, and to make new media becoming strong power and effective resource for new century Chinese literature as well.

先锋文学与先锋文学的支持网络——关于中国当代先锋文学研究方法论的一点思考

程波 上海大学文学院

提要:对中国当代先锋文学的研究,往往存在着脱离其语境的弊病。本文通过“文学场结构”的概念和方法,力图找到一种用“先锋文学”和“先锋文学支持网络”的悖论关系来表述中国当代先锋文学思潮的方法,来克服和避免这一弊端,并用此方法对中国当代先锋文学研究中被忽视和曲解的一些问题做了概括性的分析,以证明这种方法的有效性和现实意义。

Abstract: The research on Chinese contemporary avant-garde literature often breaks away from its cultural environment. To overcome and avoid this shortcoming, the essay utilizes a concept of ‘literature field’, and strives to find out a method to expatiate on Chinese contemporary avant-garde literature through the paradox between ‘avant-garde literature’ and its support net. The essay then uses this method to synoptically analyze certain points which are neglected and misunderstood in such kind of research, and shows its validity.

身体-肤觉的空间扩展与艺术意境 赵之昂 河南师范大学

提要:身体-肤觉的视觉空间扩展是人的本性之一。身体-肤觉空间扩展向个别事物的情感投射形成“情景交融”;这一空间的情感充盈形成寥廓空间快感。两者的结合是艺术意境形成的根据之一。这样就将现代实验心理学与艺术意境联系起来,从而为中国传统的意境理论找到现代实证依据。

Abstract: the visual expansion of body-skin sense is one nature of human beings’. This space expansion of body-Skin Sense projects feelings on individual things, finally it is formed an aesthetic idea which was blended by feeling and scene; the fillings of this emotion come in to being vast space titillations. Their combination is one evidence for the formation of artistic conception. thus, it links modern experimental psychology and artistic conception. We can find the modern empirical basis for the Chinese traditional theory of artistic conception.

消费时代戏剧艺术审美特征变异略论 胡立新 黄冈师范学院新闻传播系

提要:艺术终结了吗?文学终结了吗?戏剧终结了吗?它们到底是终结了还是变异了?如果是变异了,又变在哪里?这样的变异是“终结”还是“发展”?我们是应该慨叹艺术终结,还是应该去面对当下新的艺术实践,发掘它们新的审美特征?笔者试以话剧《临时病房》和当下地方戏热演为实例,力求给以上问题提供一些实证性的回答。笔者认为,当下戏剧艺术特征的变化,主要表现为新一轮艺术与技术的综合,民间视野下的时尚生活的表现,悲喜交集且雅俗兼容的审美品格等,在喜剧生存观念上有向中国传统戏曲回归的趋向。

论当代日常生活审美的民族化倾向   艾秀梅 南京师范大学

提要:改革开放后,审美从封闭的艺术欣赏领域转移到日常生活领域。90年代后期以来,日常生活审美的民族化趋向越来越明显。其中比较典型的现象如汉服运动、环境装修的中式风潮、国学经典的再消费等。从社会历史根源上说,当下日常生活审美中出现的民族化诉求是外界环境刺激下的反应性产物。这个外力就是中国20世纪的现代化追求及当下的文化全球化浪潮。

首先,日常生活审美中的民族化倾向与中国的现代化追求密切相关。自洋务运动以后,在经济、军事领域起步现代化之后,民国初年,日常生活领域的审美重建被提上议事日程。有传统及民族色彩的审美生活作为选择项之一,成为新儒家等提倡的方案。这一过程后来由于战争及动乱而中断。直到新时期以来才伴随美学热、国学热的复兴再次出现,当今社会生活领域内出现的种种带有民族风尚的审美现象在一定程度上也是现代化发展的后果。

其次,我国目前出现的日常审美民族化现象是在改革开放后发生的,又与经济及文化全球化的浪潮有影响关系。影像文化与电子传播把世界联系成一个整体,把西方审美风尚传入中国,一方面直接影响当下的生活风尚,另一方面又激起审美上的民族自觉,出现了复古风潮。因此,此一趋向也是民族文化在世界文化格局中寻找自我位置的结果。

目前,形成日常生活审美的民族化趋向的是一些鱼龙混杂的现象。汉服等有民族色彩的事物时而被当作汉民族与少数民族的差异标志,时而被用作与日韩国族的区别标志。诸如此类的现象反映出人们观念上的盲目与混乱,首先是审美主体对于民族范畴的认识尚不清晰,从而进一步导致了审美民族性认识上的误区。例如把古典的视同民族的,以复古为民族性,或者把异族情调、异国情调混同于民族性,卖弄奇巧。民族化、民族性、审美的民族性等范畴的内涵与外延有待于做出界定,日常生活审美中民族化倾向的健康发展也需要有针对性的策略。

AbstractAfter the execution of reform and open policy, aestheticization is not a specialization activity in art realm but a daily thing. Since later period of 90s,the national trend of everyday life aestheticization has intensified. There are a lot of relevant phenomenon, for example, Hanist- clothes movement, Chinese style in design.

On the social-history course, the national trend is a response of modernlization process and globalization tendency. Firstly, after the Westernization Movement , in order to built a modern country, daily aestheticization with national characteristic was purposed by New-Confucianist .Unluckly,the plan was destructed by continual wars and turmoils. Now, this course is re-newed with the aesthetic and national academic upsurge. So, the national aesthetic phenomenon in our society is a modern consequence in some degree.

Secondly, the national daily aesthetic is relevant closely with economic and cultural globalization. The visual culture , digital communication and west aesthetic style influence chinese current life style, meanwhile, awaken the nationality reflection. Then, ancient Chinese life has come into fashion again.

But there are a lot of complex and contradictory phenomenon in this national aesthetic trend.For example, Hanist clothes is thought as a ethnic symble on one hand, on the other hand as a national sigh to differ china from Japan or Korea. Some people understand the nationality as exotic atmosphere, some people equal it to the ancient characteristic. In a word, the clear explanation of the relevant terms just as nation, national, national aesthetic must to be given.

新文学图像艺术论 黄薇 中国人民公安大学文学系

提要:探讨中西艺术文化与文学的历史联系是当前学界重要的研究课题之一。本文通过对新文学图像的考察和分析使一种更为开阔的研究方法切实可行地应用到文学研究领域,以突破以往的现成思路和旧有格局。纳入考虑的图像范围主要以新文学经典文本的书面和插图为主。图像种类不仅包括绘画的题材和结构同时也包括抽象的符号与图形。论文在宏观考察现代文学文本的基础上,对书面图像作贯穿始终的重点研究,并对经典图像作细读式的审美分析和微观研究,以凸显新文学书面图像的现代特质及其与中西艺术文化的内在联系。文章认为,文学研究应当包括对相关图像文献的研究。新文学图像文献记录了现代文艺思潮发展变化的历史形状及其观念形态的嬗变过程,从艺术的层面凸显着新文学的主题内涵和精神意蕴,是与文学启蒙共时性存在的艺术启蒙。图像对新文学的传播起到符码指示和象征作用。至今,我们的博物馆和文学馆等公共文化事业,仍是以新文学图像为主向公众传播着启蒙思想和现代精神。图像与印刷与出版与传播与民族文化发展,构成十分紧密的联系。先驱者在编辑丛书的启蒙事业中对图像艺术给予高度重视。

Abstract: The historical relationship between Chinese modern literature and art culture of China and the West is an important research topic at present. By inspecting and analyzing the pictures in modern Chinese literature, the thesis tries to apply a broader research method to studies of modern Chinese literature so as to break through the conventional way of thinking and old pattern. The pictures involved in this thesis are mainly covers and illustrations of the classical works of modern literature; types of the pictures include abstract symbols and graphs as well as drawings. On the basis of macro-analysis, the thesis gives priority to textual pictures; and by close reading the pictures, the writer’s aesthetic analyses and micro-studies present the pictures’ modern traits and their inner relations with art culture of China and the West.The paper suggests that studies of modern literature should contain a study of pictures. The pictures in modern literature record the development of modern literary trend and updating of concepts, artistically show the thematic implications and spiritual meanings of modern literature, so they are art enlightenment coexisting with literature enlightenment. The pictures act as signs and symbols in the course of the spread of modern literature, so that nowadays our museums and libraries are still using the pictures to spread the enlightenment ideologies and modern spirit. Pictures are closely related to printing, publication, communication and the development of national culture, and have been attached much importance to by the pioneers who compiled series of books in their enlightenment cause.

喜剧性矛盾的结构形态与发展变异 修倜 华中师范大学文学院

提要:喜剧性矛盾最基本的结构特征在于它的自我“背反性”,构成喜剧性矛盾的两种因素相互背离、南辕北辙、恰成反对,因而形成一种自我拆解的离心力。由此出发,本文主要从人物形象和情节发展的角度,阐明了这种“背反性”矛盾的结构形态及其发展变异:1.由“假象与本质背反”到“自我与本我背反”;2.由“自我言行背反”到“灵与肉的背反”;3.由“行为与目的背反”到“悖论性的生存”;4.由“效果与动机背反”到“历史的嘲讽”。

Summary: The fundamental structural characteristic of comedical contradiction lies in its contrariety, which means that the two components which constitute the comedical contradition depart from each other, so that the self-paradox centrifugal force is formed. From the aspect of character and plot, the structural form and developmental variation of this contrariety are expressed in the following four points: 1. from the contrary between false appearance and essence to the contrary between ego and id; 2. from the contrary between statements and actions to the contrary between spirit and body; 3. from the contrary between behavior and purpose to the exsistance of contrariety; 4. from the contrary between effect and motivation to the historial taunt.

试论钟惦棐的电影美学思想 李显杰 华中师范大学文学院

提要:本文从电影美学理论角度,梳理探讨了钟惦棐的电影美学思想。认为钟惦棐电影美学思想的基本特征主要表现在三个方面:①鲜明的实践美学特色;②辩证思维的方法论特征;③“以感性为主导的电影美学理论。其电影美学思想中所充盈的现实主义美学观念、深厚浓郁的人民情怀和鞭辟入里的评论与批评见解,奠定了中国电影美学与电影理论研究的最初基石。

戏剧理论研究管窥 刘萍 安徽师范大学文学院

提要:戏剧理论作为艺术理论的重要一枝,从古至今备受研究者的青睐。本文主要围绕戏剧美学与戏剧表演、西方戏剧与中国戏剧、外在戏剧性与内在戏剧性三对范畴,管窥当代戏剧理论研究中出现的问题,以期更准确地认识其内涵,对当今戏剧理论的发展有所裨益。

Abstracts: Being an important part of the art theories, theater theory has always been valued highly. Around the three pairs of categories: theater aesthetics and theater performance, western theater and Chinese theater, outer theatricality and inner theatricality, this paper discusses the problems in the research of theater theory presently.

“术归于学”—近30年来马克思《手稿》的中国文论境遇反思

彭松乔 江汉大学语言文学研究所

提要:作为历史转折时期重要的思想资源,马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》对我国近30年来文艺理论发展产生了深刻的影响,新时期几次重大的文艺理论争鸣都与《手稿》密切相关。总的说来,马克思《手稿》的中国文论境遇呈现出“术归于学”的趋势,话语权力交锋的姿态逐渐被学理探讨所取代,这是值得庆幸的。但这一“术归于学”过程中所隐含的问题域错位现象不容忽视,它在表征《手稿》具有强大理论生命力的同时,也遮蔽了中国新时期文艺发展的诸多症结,这种“注经”式的理论生发模式值得我们反思。中国文艺理论的未来发展,必须在吸收马克思主义经典理论营养时,厘清它所预设的问题域,创新理论生发路径。

Abstract: Be the history turn period important thought resources, Marx s The Manuscript of Economics and Philosophy in 1844produced deep influence to the Chinese literature theories in 30 yearsContend for of a few important literature theorieses are all with manuscript closely related at lately period. Generally speaking, Marx sManuscript on Chinese literature theories encounter present a trend from the discourse power conflict to the academic research, This is worthy of rejoice.But this academic research replace the discourse power conflict process in the implicit problematic wrong place phenomenon is to can't neglect.It at token manuscript have strong theories vitality of in the meantime, also covered lately period literature theories in China to develop of many key points. The theories growth mode of this kind of annotation classic is worthy of we reflect. The future development of the Chinese literature theories, have to be absorbing the Marxist classic theories nourishment in the meantime, tidy up it establish in advance of problematic and creative theories development path.

现在“是一个不需要经典的时代”吗——对季广茂教授

《经典的黄昏与庶民的戏谑》的学术批评 郑惠生 广东汕头教育学院中文系

提要:尽管《经典的黄昏与庶民的戏谑》中也有一些正确的说法,但从总的情况看,却存在着诸多背离学理的地方——或以偏概全,或自相矛盾,或不符事实,或证据不足,或任性发挥,或随意指摘,或强词夺理。就其“不需要经典”的这一核心观点而言,在认识上是“假”的,而在价值上则是“负”的。对作为人类文化遗产的一个重要组成部分的“经典” ,恰当且较为有益的做法是根据人类社会的变迁和文化进步的要求重新加以诠释,并在富于洞察力的诠释的基础上区分出不同“文本”的价值差异,以此来决定增减。

Abstract: It is true that Dusks Classics and Plebeians Jocosity has some correct statements, but there are many parts running counter to the academic principlesfor instance, making sweeping criticisms, self-contradiction, inadequate evidence, spontaneous remarks, random criticism, and reasoning fallaciously. Ji’s central idea that classics are unnecessary is “false” in cognition and “negative” in value. The proper way to treat “classics” is to reinterpret them according to the transformations of human society and the requirements of cultural progress, and discover the value differences of various texts on the basis of insightful observations.

“陌生化”原则与口语化诗歌的“文学性”问题 魏天无 华中师范大学文学院

提要:俄国形式主义文论所主张的“陌生化”原则,对于认识诗歌语言及诗歌文体的特殊性有重要意义,在文学理论批评实践中被当作一个普遍有效的标准。但是,这一原则并不适宜于解释以贴近日常语言的方式传达情感的口语化诗歌。背离日常语言与返回日常语言,事实上都属于诗人所选择的“特殊”的语言表达方式,因而,是否具有言外之意、韵外之致,是判断口语化诗歌的“文学性”的关键。

文艺学的建设性变革及其重构之路 张晶 中国传媒大学文学院

提要:新的审美现实引发了关于“文学理论的边界”的论争,这场论争不仅是难以避免的,而且对于文艺学学科建设来说,也具有非常重要的意义。传统的文艺学受到了严重的挑战,而当今盛行的“文化研究”能否担当起文艺学的功能,是一个值得商榷的问题。在我看来,文艺学如果固守原来的疆界和研究对象,当然会遭遇现实的否定,而如欲以“文化研究”来取消文学理论的存在,也很难行之久远。传统的文艺学以文学作为研究对象,而大众传媒的发达对文学创作及阅读的冲击,必然在理论上构成冲突。米勒《全球化时代文学研究还会继续存在吗》,以其惊世骇俗的题目引发了理论界的震动,而其引用的德里达的话虽然耸人听闻,却不能不使人深思:“在特定的电信技术王国中(从这个意义上说,政治影响倒在其次),整个的所谓文学的时代(即使不是全部)将不复存在。哲学、精神分析学都在劫难逃,甚至连情书也不能幸免----”那么,在当今这个以大众传媒作为主要审美样式的时代,在“审美日常生活化”的背景下,文学和文学理论真会“退出历史舞台”了吗?这也许正是文艺学学科进行重新建构的大好契机。文艺学的研究对象,应该包括着文学本身及以文学为基础的视觉文化的审美现象。文化研究切中了当今时代文化转型的社会现实,但它并不能取代文学理论的研究。

视觉文化及其审美现象,在这个时代无所不在,电视、广告、动画等各种动态的、非动态的图像包围着我们,构成了今天的视觉化生存。“日常生活审美化”的命题的提出,也是基于这种现实。以文字阅读作为审美的主要方式已退居其后。文学及文学理论的权威性受到了挑战。但是文学和文学理论并没有失去了它们存在的价值。

图像在今天的审美生活中占有了相当大的比重,但它不可能“包打天下”。文学的主要样式,如小说、散文、纪实文学乃至诗歌的阅读,仍然是现时期重要的审美方式,创造想象和消费想象的最主要的形式是文学而非其他。

视觉文化的审美因子,依靠文学为其基础。视觉文化能否具有隽永的意味、精美的形式以及吸引人心的魅力,在相当大的程度上是依重于文学的。以中国人的欣赏习惯而论,情节曲折和人物命运的未知性,是最为能够吸引人们审美兴趣的。这与中国的小说传统有着非常深厚的渊源关系,并非纯粹的视觉所能担负。

在中国人的审美兴趣而言,画面的意境感都是其艺术魅力的最主要因素。在中国人的文化心理来说,与中国古典诗歌有着深刻的内在因缘。中国古典诗歌以其意境美为最重要的特点,唐诗最为经典。最能代表中国诗歌的便是这种意境感。图像美感的强弱高下,与这种诗歌思维有内在联系。

视像的创造和欣赏,不可能是与语言文字完全脱离的。从外在的角度讲,是以语言和图像相配合;更在于内涵的深度与精度。文学性缺失或匮乏,直接影响着图像美感的传达。

文学与视像不是互相排斥的。视觉文化从其积极的方面看,应该是更多的吸取文学的乳汁。我们面对无所不在的视像时,不必要取一种抵制或排斥的心理,而应该将其纳入到文艺学的研究格局之中。文学之于视像也非是消极的、异己的,而恰恰是具有重要的建设性作用。文学本身有着内在的显像功能。文学以文字为其艺术语言,并以文字来构织一幅幅图像。这种内在的视像,是文学的特殊性质。从二度创造的角度看,文学作品有着巨大的生发性,这是其他艺术形式所无法比拟的。不能想象没有好的文学剧本或以经典为依托,就能够创造出具有很高艺术价值的影视作品。

从对视觉作品的欣赏角度看,人们习惯于从整体上进行把握。同时,人们期待后面的变化,以其不可预知的惊奇感作为审美的快感。创作者用许多的画面来完成这个整体结构,必须是用文学思维才能创造出来。没有文学思维,无法胜任这种工作。到处都充斥眼帘的图像,大多数是在一种表层的,凌乱的状态下存在着,缺少一种整体感。图像的强化和文学的隐匿造成了深度感的缺失。而深度感的召回,要靠文学性来实现。

时代的变迁使传统的文艺学理论所固守的疆土越来越少了,但并不等于说文学就无可作为。其实,大众传媒中作为审美的因子的图像,恰恰与文学有着不可剥离的内在关系。文艺学的边界与其被动地被打破,不如以积极的建设性的姿态打通文学和视觉文化之间的障壁,将大众传媒中的审美要素纳入文艺学的格局之中。其实,文学创作本身已经发生了很大变化,另外,电视节目的解说词是否应该作为文学作品来加以研究?电子时代的文艺学是大有可为的,文学自身的规则与特性在图像审美中应有的作用,是一般的文化研究无法代替的。

文学批评的修辞论视角在“新时期”的出场及其意义 泓峻 山东大学威海分校中文系

提要:①作为一种批评方法,文学修辞批评强调对文学作品的解读与阐释,必须面对文本。它把文学作品的社会学的、意识形态的、文化的内容以及文学作品所表现出的美学意蕴、美学风格以及情感内容首先看成是文本产生的语言效果,试图借语言分析与篇章结构分析,揭示文学作品意义产生的内在机制。文学修辞批评曾经是中国古代文学批评的基本方法之一,在20世纪西方文学批评中也占有突出的位置。然而,由于特定的历史原因,这种方法在中国当代批评格局中却长期处于边缘的位置,被批评家及批评理论研究者所忽视。中国20世纪文学批评中存在的批评常常远离文本的问题,与批评家修辞意识的缺席直接相关。

②由于与主流的文学观念不协调,文学批评的修辞论视角在20世纪很长时间里几乎被中国批评家遗忘。文学批评中修辞论视角的出场与文学创作、文学观念、文学批评方法都有内在关联。它在“新时期”的出场是在传统文学观念的一尊地位发生动摇,文学创作中形式因素被凸显,以及对20世纪西方形式主义文学理论的引介逐渐走向深入的情况下发生的。1980年代中期以前修辞论批评集中在对王蒙小说的评论中,中后期则转向对马原等先锋作家创作的关注。

③由于批评家修辞意识的缺席,20世纪80年代以来中国文学批评界建立文学批评的学术规范的努力一直收效甚微。文学修辞批评承诺对文本意义与效果产生的过程进行揭秘,它是批评家对文本进行意义阐释与价值评判的基础。社会学批评、意识形态批评、文化批评等文学批评方法离开了对文本的修辞分析,会显得主观、随意,最终失去文学批评的学术品格。因此,文学修辞批评在“新时期”的出场,标志着中国当代文学批评的一次质的飞跃。

Abstract: 1Rhetorical criticism of literature puts foundation on textual analysis. A rhetorical conscious is indispensable in this critical method. Rhetorical analysis had been used as one of the basic methods in literary studies in ancient China. It was also a very important critical methods in the west, especially in 20th century. Because of being in conflict with the popular concepts, the method of rhetorical analysis in literary criticisms had almost been forgotten by our critics in the most years of last century .

2) The re-appearance of literary rhetorical criticisms in 1980’s had been a difficult course. The Literary Rhetorical Criticisms have connections to the literary creations, literary ideas and the methods of literature criticism .It’s appearance in The New Period had been along with the decline of traditional literary conceptions, the sticking out of formal elements in literary works and more and more introductions of western formalist literary theories in 20th century. It was mainly in the criticism about Wang Meng’s works before the middle of 1980’s, and It was in the criticism about pioneer writers in the late years of 1980’s .

3)Without rhetorical analysis, the methods of literary criticisms such as social criticism, ideological criticism and cultural criticism will be subjective and arbitrary, and lost their scientific characters. Due to the absence of the rhetorical consciousness, the efforts to built learned rules in literary criticism since 1980s haven gotten expectant results. The Literary Rhetorical Criticisms had given a virtual progress to Chinese contemporary literary criticism.

从作品到文本—兼论俄国形式主义、新批评、结构主义文学文本观的异同

董希文 鲁东大学文学院

提要:一种理论认识的产生往往与研究任务有密切联系。20世纪社会历史变迁以及对文学批评的重新定位导致了文本理论的勃兴,实现了从作品到文本根本转换。文本理论肇事于俄国形式主义,历经新批评,至结构主义,终于蔚为大观。但三种理论同中有异,既有因循,又有超越,共同丰富、发展着文学文本理论。

Abstract: The upsurge of one theory ties up the study mission. The vigorous development of text theories is derived from the flux of society and renewable orientation to literary critic in 20th century, and it brings on the great changes in the fields of literary theory: from work to text. The text theory is formed from Russian Formalism, go through New criticism, and present a splendid sight in Structuralism. There are some differences among them, the temporization is as much as the transcendent, but they enrich and develop the text theory together.

文学意象的生成与命名—探讨文学理论的一个基本概念 孙春旻 广东技术师范学院文学院

提要:文本中并不存在已经完成的一成不变的文学意象,只存在可能生成文学意象的某些等待解读的话语节点。文学意象以语词及其所唤起的心理视象(即语象)为依托,以语象背后隐藏的丰富的精神内涵和文化密码为潜在视域,是在世界、作者、文本、读者的多向对话中被建构起来的具有超言越象特征的独特的艺术形象。由若干语象构成的语象链对意象的生成已有较明显的酝酿作用。整体的文本语境决定意象的独到意义。宏观的历史文化语境对意象生成的作用表现为能使一个词的意义涉及到“整个文明史”。用某一语词命名,这是语言艺术中的任何形象都不能摆脱的宿命,只要能保证阐释的深度,意象名称的简单化与类型化就不会成为理解意象的障碍。

Abstract: Completed and invariable literature imagery doesn’t actually exist in any text, which only possesses some language node waiting to be explained that could generate literature imagery. Relying on words and pictures produced in the minds of people reading or listening these words (verbal icon) as support, abundance spiritual connotation and cultural code hidden underneath verbal icon as potential field of vision, literature imagery, as a unique art image, constructed by world, author, text and reader in their multilateral dialogue, has certain characteristics beyond normal words and images. Verbal icon chain constituted by verbal icons clearly facilitates the generation of imagery. Context as a whole decides the unique meaning of imaginary. Macroscopically historical and cultural context has effects on generation of imagery at the level that a meaning of a word could be referred to “entire history of civilization”. Using a certain word to name an image is an irresistibility fate for any image in all language arts. The simplicity and typification of the name of imagery would not stand as obstacle in elucidating imagery.

略论中国美学思想中的审丑意识 王庆卫 华中师范大学文学院

提要:中国长期处在古典美学观念阶段,从现世人生或自然与社会规律的角度看待美丑,较早地以辨证的方法来分析和对待美与丑的关系、善与恶的关系,对丑是抱有一种宽容和包涵的态度的。明代以来,丑的地位上升,是伴随着个体意识的解放而发生的;然而传统的审美观念没有被丑的兴起所根本动摇。清代中后期随着西方思想的传入,美与丑的观念开始被置于学科的视野下得以分析和梳理。

Abstract: Chinese aesthetic had been in classic aesthetic step for a long time, and it looked on ‘ugly’ from the viewpoint of human life or rules of society, analyzed the relation of beauty and ugly, good and evilness by dialectical measures. Since Ming dynasty, going with individual consciousness’ liberation, the statue of ‘ugly’ ascended. But traditional aesthetic conceptions had not been fluctuated. After Qing dynasty the western aesthetic theories had introduced in China and those concepts had been analyzed in viewpoint of aesthetic subject.

小说文本的两种实验读法—以余华的《活着》为例 王学海 浙江省海宁市文联张宗祥书画院

提要:文学作为文艺学杂以政治视阈的阅读文本,与文学作为审美意识形态的阅读文本,它对文本的阅读就会有两种不同的阅读效果,并影响着读者的思想。本文以余华的《活着》为例,来进行两次阅读的尝试,并不作结论。因为任何结论对于文本,也许都可能会产生误读。

Abstract: Literature, as a reading text of literary and artistic work from the political visual threshold and as a reading text of aesthetic ideology, has two different reading effects on the reading text and also influences readers’ thoughts. This paper tries to show the two different readings on Yu Hua’s novel Live and gives no conclusion, for any conclusion may lead to readers’ misunderstanding on the text.

从李健吾文学批评研究看当下文学批评的缺失 周敏 西师范大学文学院

提要:李健吾在二十世纪文学批评史上的地位是不容忽视和低估的,他的文学批评观、文学批评实践及其形成的文化背景,在二十世纪文学批评史上无疑是一个独特的存在,甚至从某种意义上说,真正从文学的角度、从审美的角度来从事批评,把批评当作一项严肃的事业、一种相对独立的理论创造的,李健吾或许是第一人。但这样一位在文学批评史上卓有建树的大家,长期以来在大陆却是孤寂的,没有受到应有的重视和研究,他在批评界的影响一直被人们淡忘。直到80年代初,随着《李健吾文学评论选》的出版,李健吾文学批评才开始进入人们的研究视野,他的批评风格才受到人们的追捧,但也仅是昙花一现,很快随着商品经济的到来,批评界又呈现出另一种局面。当下的文学批评更是存在着严重的危机,批评受大众文化、商业炒作影响比较大,批评家往往对作家没有深入了解、对作品没有精心的细读就妄发议论,用一种媚俗的套话追时尚、赶时髦,作出一些令人瞠目的褒贬。另一种则常常将批评对象作为印证某种理论的材料,缺乏创造性的由理论到作品,追根溯源,条分缕析,将文学划分成了具有固定规则的各种体裁,批评成为冷漠的言说和机械的剖析。这些现象的存在,无疑导致了批评的苍白和无力,使批评陷入难以自拔的困境。从李健吾文学批评研究我们可以发现李健吾的文学批评观所倡导的批评思想,以及李健吾文学批评所形成的批评特色,和他所具有的学养与修养,正是当下文学批评所缺失的。我们寻找“缺失”,针对“缺失”,寻求“重建”,不仅对我们反思20世纪的文学批评,建构当下的文学批评理论具有重要的价值,而且对当下多元的文学批评实践也具有启迪性的意义。

Abstract: Li Jianwu’s position in the history of literary criticism in 20th century should not be neglected and underrated. It is unique during the period that he formed his own view of literary criticism, the practice of literary criticism, and its culture background. In a sense, Li Jianwu may be the first one who took literary criticism as a serious career and a relative independent creation of theory from the standpoint of literature and aesthetic. However, such a great literary critic has been alone in China and his influence on literary criticism has been forgotten because of the lack of studying. Until the beginning of 1980s, with the publication of the Collection of Li Jianwu’s Literary Remarks, his literary criticism was firstly studied and his criticism style was followed by others. But just as a flash in the pan, with the coming of commercial economy, a new situation appeared in the field of literary criticism and even serious crisis exists in current criticism. Because of the influenced of the popular culture and commercial medium, critics remarked blithely without understanding the works deeply and read the works intensively. In order to catch up with fashion, they usually used the stereotype remarks to criticize the works. Another phenomenon was that they always took the criticism objects as materials to confirm some theories rather than creative analysis from theory to works. Classifying the literature into various styles with firm rules, they put criticism into cool remarks and mechanical analysis. No doubt, all these lead the pale and soft criticism to mire. After studying Li Jianwu’s literary criticism, we may understand that his criticism ideas, his literary criticism style, and his quality of his personality are exact what the current literary criticism lost. We should seek this losing and “rebuild” against “losing”. It is not only valuable for building the current literary criticism theories, but also full of inspiration to the present pluralism literary criticism practice.

论转义修辞观念的兴起及其理论价值 谭善明 聊城大学文学院

提要:“转义”一词在古典修辞学中是指词语的一种用法,即一个词语被改变了意义、用作它途。这种用法伴随着柏拉图对修辞学欺骗人、迷惑人的严厉批判而逐渐被认为是语词的误用。修辞学在经历了长期的压抑之后,突然成为一种革命性的力量,在20世纪的文学、哲学、历史学、社会学等领域中大显手身,它通过在话语中的建构和解构作用,以一种审美的冲动不断打破、翻新主观性的“真理”,这正得益于转义修辞观念的确立。有两个源头共同促进了这场声势浩大的运动,第一个是尼采的思想,第二个则是索绪尔开始的语言学转向。尼采认为语言是修辞,修辞的主要手段是转义,一切词语都是转义;转义正是通过不停地制造差异,以感性的直接性和主观的任意性,将语言变成修辞艺术活动的场所。索绪尔对能指和所指进行区分,将语言符号的指称看作是任意的和约定的,这就否定了词语与事物之间的本质符合论,一方面从结构上规定了语言表达的可能性,另一方面也为语词的转换提供了开放性;结构主义后来砸碎了“能指-所指”的锁链,在一个多元的、变动的话语世界中为修辞力量的发挥提供了新的契机。

这种修辞观念认为,任何话语的生成都是以审美的方式对本义的超越、反对和颠覆,在解构一种认知观念的同时,也建构了新的认知观念,这些都是在修辞式的艺术中完成的。从巴特、福柯、德里达、德曼和米勒等人的理论中可以看出,转义修辞观念正体现了当代文化的特殊性,那就是话语中心的游走。修辞现在作为一种解构性的力量加入了审美与认知的较量,在对真理和权力的反叛中,修辞既是因又是果:作为因,它在直觉中创造变换无定的转义以复活所有枯萎了的幻象;作为果,它在快乐中展示自命为谎言的真理,这就是自愿撒谎的审美幻象,这种快乐也就是一种艺术快乐。转义产生之际,就是一种认知对另一种认知的反抗,也就是新一轮审美过程开始之时。

AbstractThe trope means the usage of the words in classic rhetoric, that, a words meaning is changed and is used in an other way. This usage is treated as an abuse of words because of Platos strict criticism that the rhetoric is cheating and blindfolding. The rhetoric becomes revolutionary strength suddenly after long oppression, which plays an important role in literature, philosophy, history, sociology and so on in the 20th century. The rhetoric, benefit from the establishment of the idea of the trope, continually destroys and renews the subjective truth aesthetically through the construction and deconstruction in discourse. There are two originations propelling this huge movement: First, Nietzsche’s thought; second, the language conversion from Saussure. Nietzsche believes that the language is the rhetoric, that the trope is the most important way in the rhetoric and that all the words are trope, as well as that the trope makes the language a place of rhetoric arts through causing difference frequently. Differentiating the signifier and the signified, Saussure regards the language as arbitrary and conventional, so as to reject the essence agreement between the words and the objects. The probability of expression is given structurally, as well as the space of word’s conversion is supplied. Structuralism breaks the relation of the signifier and the signified, providing new opportunity for rhetoric’s action in a pluralist and movable discourse world.

This rhetoric idea insists that, in the rhetoric art, each generation of discourse is to surpass and to oppose and to overthrow the original meaning aesthetically, and that the new cognition idea is constructed while the old is deconstructed. From the thought of Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, De Man and Miller, we find that the rhetoric of the trope shows the specialty of contemporary culture, that is the changeable of the discourse centre. The rhetoric now joins in the fight between the aesthetic and the cognition with a deconstructive power. In the rebellion against the truth and the authority, the rhetoric is the cause and the result: As the cause, it creates changeable tropes so as to revive the faded image in intuition; as the result, it shows the truth which thinks itself falsehood in pleasure. While the trope generates, the new cognition resists another one, so comes the new aesthetic process.

文学研究范式:从“内结构”到“外结构” 殷曼楟 南京大学哲学系

提要:自90年代以来,我国文学创作及文学研究的最大挑战莫过于文学场自身、及其与文化生产场之间的关系所发生的重大转变。例如在整个文化生产场中,专业评论机制权威的相对紧缩和集中;在新兴传播媒介之中,当部分研究话语绕过“专业机制”的中介,直接与匿名的大众短兵相接时,它们所遭遇的“胜利”与“尴尬”等等。这言说语境上一系列的巨变,直接要求并导致了文学创作、及文学研究策略上的调整。这标志并要求了文学研究范式从内结构向外结构的转换。即从80年代以作品为中心的研究方式,转向与之关联的体制、文化、历史等更宽泛层面的讨论。对于这种“外结构”式的文学研究范式,我们可以考虑从以下路径来进入:

①从程序主义的角度来看文学。当下,我们已经从传统的对作品“是什么”的定性分析,转向了对其如何最终成为“作品”的问题讨论。也就是说,当下,一部作品只有在异化为某一文化事件后,才能更有效地成为文学研究的素材。在此过程中,我们看到的不只是作品本身的结构和思想,而是渗透于其中的各种使之合法化的节点。

②从文化的角度来看文学。程序主义路径并非空穴来风,它是随着文学在文化场中所扮演的角色的转换而显现的。90年代以来,文学在建构我们经验中所扮演的角色发生了转变。如果说在80年代,文学作品构成了建构中国人文化品格的某种指导性经验;那么90年代后,随着信息大爆炸时代的到来,文学创作所面对的是早已携带着诸多经验的读者,以及以更强势的力度加入到建构大众经验中的整个文化生产领域。这样,文学研究若想坚持其介入性的、批判性的职能就必须跳出“内结构”的研究范式。

③从历史的角度来看文学。在短短地30年里,我国文学场的巨变对于今天的研究者来说不啻为一种机遇。正是在这种巨变中,我们的思索得以向纵深处拓展。文学从新时期到新世纪的变化以最鲜活的形态向我们展示了一种历史性。这不再是传统的线性艺术史的梳理方式,而是一种反思式艺术史的开端。我们对王朔“触电”“开骂”事件的解析,对“百家讲坛”热潮的反思也有助于拨开“内结构”分析下文学研究的部分迷雾,透视将文学与社会相关联的体制,及其转化的轨迹。

AbstractSince the 1990s, the biggest challenge of our literature and literary studies presents. It comes from the literary field itself, and its relationship with the field of cultural production. For example, in the field of cultural production, there is more contracted and centralized authority in the literature institution. In the emerging media field, when some discourses meet their anonymous audiences directly while bypassing the professional institution, they have suffered “victory" or "embarrassing", etc. The changing context requests and leads to the adjustments of the strategies in the literature creation and correlative studies. We can see that the paradigm of our literature studies is leaving the text-centered approach, that is, from the intra-structure to the extra-structure. Now, we could consider this kind of extra-structure in the following three ways.

First, we can catch on it from the perspective of the proceduralism. We have come to a new way of studying the literature, that is, how a literary work comes into being? At present, a work would help our studies more effectively, only when the work is converted into some kind of cultural affairs. In this process, we pay attention to those factors which confer the status of the works.

Second, we can consider it from a cultural point of view. The approach of the proceduralism bases on the role of the literature in the cultural field. In the 1980s, it was the literary works that constructed our experiences to a considerable degree. And in the 1990s, the literary works have to face their readers who have had been constructed with other experiences. Furthermore, they could not neglect the whole cultural production field which constructs the readers’ experiences powerfully. So the literary studies must set aside the paradigm of intra-structure, if they want to uphold the critical functions.

Third, we can do from a historical point of view. For us, the shift in the last 30 years is some kind of opportunity. The literature turn from the new era to the new century display the literary history in the most vivid way. This is no longer the kind of linear literary history, but a history with reflection. By this way, we are able to penetrate into the institution which connect the literature to society, and grasp the track of its conversion.

压抑性反升华:齐泽克的创造性再读 徐敏 华中师范大学文学院

提要:本文通过对“无意识”这一精神分析重要概念从弗洛伊德到拉康,再到齐泽克的不断发展和变化所作的梳理,阐明了“压抑性反升华”理论的形成过程、基本内涵和主要贡献,从而揭示“创造性再读”在西方文学理论生产过程中的重要作用,对于当代文论发展的重要意义。

“解构”语境中的人道主义 付立峰 云南大学中文系

提要:阿伦·布洛克在《西方人文主义传统》中把海德格尔等人称之为“新版本人文主义”,但没有对此作具体讨论,更没有涉及德里达的“解构”思想。本文则由此而试图探讨:海德格尔与德里达对西方人道主义的“解构”到底是不是一种人道主义,若是,那么它们在何种意义上是人道主义的?实际上,人道主义并不是“一种主义”,而是指形形色色的人道主义,它们围绕着人的价值而展开的持续争论。依照海德格尔的看法,传统的人道主义乃是形而上学,它诞生于“存在的遗忘”,如此一来,它非但不能真正维护“人之人道”,反而将西方世界引入虚无主义的歧途,而“解构”则是通过将“此在”带向“存在”,从而对人道主义进行正本清源。

德里达汲取了海氏的“解构”之思,但在德里达看来,海氏的“存在”仍然是欧洲中心主义的与形而上学的,“存在”的“呼声”依然会把人类引向歧途。不是因为形而上学的人道主义遗忘了“存在”,而是因为它遗忘了那个在“存在”与“存在者”之间的“差异”,所以才无法克服“虚无主义”。

目前国内学界存在着对“解构”的误解,即简单地将其视为“消解”、“否定”,由此断定“解构”本身就是一种“虚无主义”、“相对主义”。德里达反复辩解“解构不是拆毁或破坏”,“解构在任何时候都是属于‘是’,属于对生命的肯定。”实际上,“解构”是对人的价值及生活世界所进行的不断批判和重建,以此来克服虚无主义。人道主义的核心要素就是关注价值的生成,并对此生成着的价值给于持续的警惕、反省和批评,而非僵化的价值信条。正如萨义德所说,这种批评是“寻求自由、启蒙、更大的力量”。从这个意义上来说,“解构”乃是地地道道的人道主义。

在“世界经济宗教”的背景下,人文学科在大学中的边缘化是个不争的事实,并且诱发了学界自身人文信念的丢失。真正地切入“解构”思想而非盲目地拒斥,可以激发中国学界对自身人道主义传统的批判性重建。

Abstract: Alan Bullock defined Heideger’s thought as “a new edition of humanism” in his work The Humanist Tradition in the West , but he did not expound it, let alone the Desconstrution thought of Derrida. The focus of this paper is that whether the deconstruction of western humanism by Hedegger and Derrida can be called humanism or not. If it is, in what sense can it be called humanism?

As a matter of fact, humanism is not a doctrine but various kinds of continuous discussions on the value of human being. In Heidegger’s opinion, traditional humanism belong to Metaphysics and it comes from the neglect of being. As a result, it do not uphold “humanism of human being” but lead the western world to nihilism. On the contrary, Desconstruction correct humanism by guiding “Dasein” to “being”.

Derrida drawed Heidegger’s thought of desconstruction. However, according to Derrida, “being” in Heidegger’s thought is still European-centered and metaphysical, and the call of being still leads human being to the wrong way. It is not because the metaphysical humanism neglect “being” but it neglect the “differance” between “being” and “entity” that the metaphysical humanism can not overcome nihilism.

There is a misunderstanding of Desconstruction in Chinese academic circles by simply define it as clearing-up or negation and thus conclude Deconstruction belongs to nihilism, relativism. Derrida continually explain that “Desconstruction is not taking-apart or destroying”, and “Desconstruction belongs to ‘Be’ in any time and it is the confirmation of life”. In fact, Desconstruction overcomes nihilism by continual criticism and reconstruction on the value of human being and their world. The core factor of humanism is the concentration for the becoming of value and the continuous alertintrospection and criticism of the value, but not the rigid doctrine of value. Just like what E·W·Said says, this criticism search for freedom, enlightment and more powerful strength”. From this point of view, Desconstruction belongs to humanism in the true sense.

In the background of “religion of world-wide econmy”, it is true that the humanities have been marginalized and this have induced humanism lost in academic circles. The appropriate understanding of Desconstruction rather than blindly repelling it may arouse the critical reconstruction of humanism tradition in china.

文学理论与批评具有政治性--特里·伊格尔顿文艺思想学习札记 刘文斌 内蒙古师范大学

提要:伊格尔顿对文学与意识形态的基本看法可以归纳为:文学“就是一种意识形态”;“纯”文学理论织是一种学术神话;根本就没有“纯”文学价值评定或解释这么回事。伊格尔顿重视文学批评的实践性和革命性,主张文学批评要有助于人类的解放事业,他为文学批评规定了意识形态和政治性的任务。近年来出现一些贬低马克思主义文论的论调,应当认真学习伊格尔顿关于文学同政治的关系的论述,从中获取有益的借鉴。

西方视域中的意象与幻象—以朗格美学为研究对象 谢冬冰 江苏广播电视大学传媒艺术系

提要:朗格美学中,表象、意象和幻像是经常使用的概念,但她本人没有对这三个概念做过明确区分。本文认为,表象偏重于可视的外观形象,在形象来源上依赖于视觉感官,意象可以看作是一个大于或包含表象的概念,它既指可视的视觉形象,也指意识中来自幻想的或清晰或模糊的形象,就是“意中之像”,幻像则偏重艺术形象和现实形象的区别,朗格把和现实区别的进入艺术的一切形象都称为幻像,她认为艺术中的一切形象都是虚幻的,艺术所表现的是一种虚幻的真实。幻像的实质是一种“他者”,她把幻像分为“一级幻像”和“二级幻像”。从涵义上看,朗格使用的这些概念在中国古代美学范畴中都可找出与之对举的言说方式。

Abstract: In Langer’s aesthetic theories, presentation, image and illusion are three notions frequently mentioned. However, an accurate distinction among them is not made by her. In the author’s view, presentation focuses on visual and outward form, and its source relies on visual sense; image can be perceived as a conception larger than or embodies presentation, which refers either to the visual form, or to the vague or clear fancy form in one’s consciousness; illusion stresses the difference between artistic and realistic forms. According to Langer, forms separating from the realistic ones and thus belonging to artistic types are illusions. She argues that all forms of art are imaginary, and what art expresses is illusory truth. The essence of illusion is otherness”. Langer divides illusion into “first-level” and “second-level”. From the perspective of connotation, the above conceptions proposed by Langer find their counterparts in Chinese ancient atheistic category.

找寻一个研究的参照系——日本美学艺术学的研究路径及现状 梁艳萍 湖北大学中文系

提要:上世纪九十年代以来,关于美学、文艺学的论争一直断续进行,关于“实践美学”、关于“中国文论的‘失语’与‘重建’”、关于“大众文化”、关于“马克思主义美学、文艺学体系”、关于“日常生活审美化”和“文艺学转向”、关于“现代性反思与新启蒙主义”、关于“后殖民主义、民族主义及第三世界批评”的等等论争,有很多学者参与讨论。近年来,笔者在日本东京大学研究期间,对日本学者的研究路径与方法有所关注,希望以此作为参照,来反观我们的美学、文艺学研究。

西方美学艺术学研究从19世纪末期20世纪初传入日本之后,通过西周的定名,フェノロサ、中江兆明、森鸥外、高村光太郎、大村西崖等人的翻译介绍,经过了大塚保治的东京大学美学讲座——美的性质和研究方法的确立和深田康算“京都学派”的建立,走过了美学的“定名”、“迅速欧化期(1868-1878)”、“反国粹期(1878-1888)”之后,日本美学一直沿着美学艺术学研究的路径开拓前行。

日本学者很多认为美学研究有三种方法——心理学、社会学、哲学,因此,日本美学艺术学研究的方法较多沿袭此三种方法。如:藤田一美主持的文部省基础研究项目《全球化状态下的艺术理论与伦理》,这个项目集中了东京大学、庆应义塾大学、日本大学、早稻田大学的学者,主要研究从如下几条路径延伸、展开——二十世纪世界文化的理论与伦理;西洋艺术美学与市民、国家、政治、伦理;东亚美学的构造与解析、媒介与占有等。

考据性研究是日本学者的强项,上个世纪90年代以来,日本学者更加注重资料的考据研究与翻译,个体美学艺术家的研究一般都有年谱与著作列表。如西村清和翻译的卡·索尔格《美学概论》、桑木务翻译的海德格尔的《存在与时间》以及大量的个体美学家研究专著中,都有详尽的年谱和著作编目和研究目录。

200610月在大阪大学召开了第57届全国美学大会。研究发表主要有以下几个层面:日本审美意识与场的理论—物哀与心知(大石昌史);东亚美术与艺术的历史样式与展开(立入正之,要真理子,吴永三等);艺术的全球化与本土性——艺术创作理论的理论与现场(岩城见一,铃木博之等);西洋音乐、摄影美学研究(小宫山晶子,篠田大基,冈本圆太,金日林等);以及个体美学、艺术家研究——康德、波纳文图拉、萨特、巴赫、瓦格纳、鸭长明、东山魁夷、芥川龙之介——研究(古川裕朗,郡田尚子,门间仁史,玉村恭,高桥奈保子等)。

日本马克思主义美学作为西方美学、艺术学研究的一个分支,主要表现“马克思主义美学的革命与转向”的研究,柄谷行人的《马克思:其可能性的中心》;大泽正道的《游戏与劳动的辩证法》;上野俊树的《结构主义与马克思主义:阿尔都塞与普朗查斯》;森山重雄《作为文学的革命的转向:日本马克思主义文学》;黑田宽一编著的《马克思主义文艺复兴》、浅田彰的《马克思的现在》等等。

Abstract: The debate about esthetics and the literature and art continuously carried on. Since 1990's. A great deal of scholars took part in the argumentation of practice esthetics, reconstructs about Chinese literature theory, mass culture, the system of literature and art contained in Marxism esthetics, aesthetic of daily life and the change of theory of literature and art, modernity reconsidering and new initiation principle, as well as post- colonialism, nationalism and the third world criticism. Scholars reconsidered the Chinese literature and art research history and the present situation, attempts to pursue the new way of esthetics and the literature and art research. The Japanese esthetics art research developed smoothly in recent years. In the study period in Tokyo university in Japan, I had pay attention to the Japanese scholar's research way and the method, the author hoped to take it as the reference, to observed our esthetics and the research of literature and art.

Since the study of western esthetics spreads to Japan in the late 19th century and the beginning of 20th century,NIXISYUU named it, Earnest Fenollosa [ フェノロサ] Nakae tokiake,Mori rintarouTakamura koutarou Oomura Nshige developed the translation. Otuka Yashiji blazon forth the study by a course of lecture ­­named “the foundation of esthetics’ character and study” and Fukada yasukazu who formed the Tokyo school, the study went through the naming period, the quick Occidental period, the anti-quintessence of a country period, the Japanese esthetic carried on its road by the study of esthetic and art study.

Many Japanese scholars thought esthetics research has three methods, psychology, sociology and philosophy. Therefore, the Japanese esthetics study and art research follows the three methods much. For instance, the basic study item “the theory and ethic of art under the circumstance of globalize” of Ministry of Education,Culture,Sports,Scienceand Technology holds by Fujita Kazuyoshi collects scholars of UNIVERSITY TOKYOU, UNIVERSITY KEIO, UNIVERSITY WASEDA, UNIVERSITY NIHON,they took their study from the next several ways: World’s culture theory and ethic; western art and esthetic and civilian, country, politics and ethic; the parse media and possess of esthetics of eastern Asia.

The textual criticism research is the Japanese scholar's strong point, since the last 90’s, Japanese scholars paidd more attention to the material the textual criticism research and the translation. Generally the individual esthetics artist's research has its own biographical chronology and work tabulation. For example, "Esthetics Introduction" of Karl Solger translated by NISHIMURA Kiyokazu NIXIMURA and the "Existence And Time" of Heidegger translated by Kuwaki Tsutomu, and the massive monographs of individual estheticians all have the exhaustive biographical chronology and the work catalog of the research.

Oct.7th ,2006 to Oct. 9th ,2006, the 57th national esthetics conference of Japan was held in Osaka University. Almost all the Japanese esthetics research experts, the scholars and the large number of students had gathered together. Papers of the conference divided into the research papers and the graduate student papers publication. The publication included several aspects, such as “The theory about the Japanese aesthetic consciousness”(Ooishi Akirasi);“ The historical mode and development of Eastern Asian art”(Tateiri Seishi and Kaname Mariko and Goensou)

The artistic globalization and the aboriginality ,the theory and scene of art creation theory Iwaki Kenichiand Susuki Hirozuki ; Western music, photographic esthetics research Komiyama Akiko and Sasada ōki and Okamoto Maruta, Kimu hirin and so on) as well as individual esthetics and the artist study - - the study of Kant, Bonaventura, Sartre, Bach, Wagner, Kamo tyounei, Higashiyama Kaii,Akutagawa RyounoshigeKoga yurougunda HisakoKatoma NinshiTamamura KiyouTakahashi Nayasugo and so on.)

As one of the study of Western esthetics and arts, the main performance of Japanese Marxism esthetic arts researches are Karatani kōjin’s “Marx: Its possible center” ,Ootaku Seimiti’“Dialectics of play and work”,Ueno oshiki“Structuralism and Marxism: Althusser and Poulantzas”,Moriyama Shikio’“As the change of the literature revolution : Marxism literature in Japan”, Kurada Hiroiti’“ Marxism Renaissance”,Asada Akira(shō)’“ Marx's Present” and so on.

循名责实、纵横交织——新世纪中国美学研究的拓展 祁志祥 上海财经大学中文系

提要:新时期以来,中国美学研究取得了令人瞩目的成果,不过并非没有进一步作为的余地。新世纪的中国美学研究如何开辟一块新的天地?我以为,回归美学之父鲍姆嘉通,按照美学学科的本有之义,进行名副其实的中国美学研究,并且把横与纵、论与史真正结合起来,以论带史,以史证论,相互促进,想必会为我们的中国美学研究增添新的景观。

In the Chinese ancient opinion, the satisfied tease is regarded as beauty, while the beauty is not supposed to be the patent of vision and sense of hearing. The tease of beauty comes from not only objective forms but also materialization of hearts ideas, specially morality ideas. In the reification of hearts ideas and moral ideas, subjects and objects strike a responsive chord by their same structure, which give birth to beauty. The feature of the Chinese ancient theory of beauty decides the characteristic of the theory about the sense of beauty. Beauty is considered as a sort of tease, so sense of beauty is called as tasting. Heart is supposed to be a sort of beauty, so the way of appreciating beauty must be to watch with ones heart. Morality is regarded as beauty, so the state of heart about getting beauty must be empty and quiet. In addition, the work analyses closely the differences between the theories of beauty from the Confucian school, Taoism school and Buddhism. The Confucian school considers the natural symbol of morality, the feelings, the harmony and the form conforming with goals as the beauty. Taoism school regards empty, wonderful, light, soft, natural, vitality, agreeable as the beautiful. Buddhism supposes empty, quiet, death and their symbols such s circle and light to be beautiful, while supposing all phenomenon of the material beauty to be unreal illusions.

神话与文学批评 胡继华 北京第二外国语学院比较文学与跨文化所

提要:神话被提升到人类精神现象的历史高度而获得思想史的价值,是20世纪人文学术的一项巨大的成就。

神话理论隐含着一个对人类生存处境的基本判断:人类总是无法控制自己的生存处境。无法控制自己的生存处境,就无奈于精神恐惧。正是在这么一个强有力的逻辑前提下,德国思想家汉斯·布鲁门贝格提出了“神话劳作”的思想。他首先追问,神话为什么并没有随着启蒙的展开和理性的凯旋而化为云烟消散?他的回答是,人类总是无法控制自己的生存环境,无法驾御他所面对的世界,无法排遣对于紊乱的恐惧。这种无法控制的环境、无法驾御的世界和无法排遣的恐惧,构成了一种连尼采的“超人”也敌不过的绝对威权和现实威权。他生造了“现实的专制主义”一词来表达这么一种人类生存处境。而正是为了回应“现实的专制主义”,人类就凭借了神话的力量,即通过神话的劳作来排遣深渊一般的生存恐惧。神话没有历史,只是在被不断地讲述,一遍一遍地重复的故事将恐惧感渐渐消解。不断讲述,无限重复,这就是神话的劳作。神话在劳作之中总是言过其实,总是锺实增华,布鲁门贝格将这种情形称之为“语词进化论”。换句话说,没有历史的神话提供了一种语词结晶物,它便成为我们的现代性考古的对象。布鲁门贝格断言,神话没有终结于逻各斯,或者被逻各斯替代;相反,神话成为人类集体之梦的残像余韵,以及古代世界宇宙观的活的形象。

蕴涵于神话中的神圣与呈现在教义之中的神圣绝不可同日而语。神话是多元的景象,而教义则是一元的禁令,或者说神话允许一切只禁止一宗,而教义禁止一切只允许一宗,二者形若冰炭,判若云泥。神话代表一种丰富的世界观而呈现为活生生的象征符号,表示人类的记忆永远是多义的。因而神话抗拒单一的阐释,从而为文化共同体特别是那些弱势的文化共同体提供了向导,让他们在主流文化之内寻求自我定位,在同一的霸权下写出异端的权力。

文本分析可能神话理论,批评实践可以提升理论。第一个个案是普罗米修斯神话,它的不断被重述说明人类如何为了排遣“现实专制主义”及其带来的恐惧而展示出其中的复杂维度。第二个个案是俄狄浦斯-哈姆雷特神话,它的不断被重述说明人类如何在神话宇宙观中追寻现代的合法性的。

关于文学批评学学科理论建构的几点思考 顾凤威 广西师范学院

提要:文学批评是对文学作品的审美批评与判断,即对文学创新属性的认识。它和批评对象的关系是一种“咬定青山不放松”的执着,它更是一种“平等—对话—沟通”所最终结成的统一和融合。批评家的社会和历史的责任感,则是脱离庸名俗利的境界的高屋建瓴。

文学批评的本质:文学批评应是对“这一个”的审美发现与创新判断。在进行文学批评时,既不能离开作品,也不能离开作者和时代语境,为此,批评者与文本对话,才会有理有据、有分析、有说服力地评价作品的历史需要与历史局限性,揭示作品的内蕴与价值。在整个批评的言说中,批评家的个性,也得到了充分的表现和张扬。如果把文学创作、文学批评,和文学创作与批评的社会效应作为一个系统,那么,文学批评是对文学作品的意识形态评价,通过评价,有利于指导创作,引导接受特别是鉴赏性接受,推动一定性质文学的繁荣发展,从而影响一定的政治和经济。

文学批评的标准:有学者把批评标准概括为文学性、审美性、社会综合性等三个方面。笔者认为把文学性和审美性并列,完全是多余的。因为文学作品的“文学性”,正是文学作品的“审美性”得以产生的条件,文学作品的“审美性”则是文学作品“文学性”作用的结果。而综合性以为可以囊括文学与经济、政治、哲学、历史、宗教、文化等方方面面也是不科学的,因为过于宽泛的特点等于没有特点。马克思主义美学的和历史的以及二者相统一的原则,是一个可以涵盖一切文学文本的总原则。在这个总原则的指导下,被评价对象的创新性、多样性、复杂性等,则由具体对象确定。

文学批评的主体:在艺术领域内,“匠”和“家”有显著区别。“匠”是操作型的,“家”是创造型的。作为不是“匠”而是“家”的批评家,他们的产品应当独具慧眼,有独到之见解,要评得作者心跳,令读者和匠们自愧不如。在世界文学批评史上,有高度关注文学与社会关系、文学与人民关系,善于从文本中发现作家创新因素的敏锐审美鉴赏力的别、车、杜那样的批评主体;也有对自己的批评对象冷漠、完全不作价值判断的罗兰·巴尔特那样的批评主体。文学批评家的主体性或个性,是在与批评对象的“对话”中,在文学批评的反复实践中形成的。当文学批评家的批评无论在批评对象的审美形式和审美内蕴以及批评文字的技巧性都越来越契合文学批评的本质要求——创新时,他(她)们的主体性或个性就愈独特鲜明。批评家的主体性和个性,并不是倚“势”欺人或夸夸其谈,相反,它需要的是实事求是,以理服人。

Abstract: The literary criticism refers to the aesthetic criticism and judgment of the literary works, in other words, it is the study of the literature innovation's attribute. It means the perseverance of “sticking to the goal”. Moreover, it is finally the union and the integration of “equality—conversation--communication”. Critics’ sense of social and historical responsibilities is the representation of their noble acme, divorcing from the vulgarism.

About the Nature of Literary Criticism:Literary criticism should be the beauty appreciation and innovation judgment which aim at “this one”. When we working at literary criticism, we not only hold the work firmly, but also stick to author and the ages of language environment. As a result, critics only talk to his article that could values the work's historical need and shortage basically, analysis and personally. And he could explains the work's meaning and value. In the whole talking of criticism, critic's character could performance entirely. If we take literature creation, literature criticism and their social effects together, the literature criticism is the evaluation of the work's consciousness and appearance. And make use of this evaluation, it's advantageous to leading creation and acceptation, especially appreciate acceptation. Therefore it develop some natures' work quickly and finally effects politics and economy to some degree.

About the Standard of Literary Criticism:Some scholars generalized the standard of criticism to three factors――literature, appreciation and comprehension. In my opinion, it's surplus to parallel the literature and appreciation. Because the literature of literary work is the condition that the appreciation of literary work could be birthed, and the latter is the former's result.It's non-science to think that the social comprehension include literature, economy, politics, philosophy, history, religion and culture, and so on. Because too wild of the characteristic mean nothing.The principle of Marist esthetics, history and the combination of both is a whole principle that could include everything of literary work. Following this one, the invocation, variety and comprehension of criticism object are decided by concrete object.

About the subject of literary criticism:In the field of art, there's obvious difference between craftsman and expert. Craftsman belongs to operation and expert belongs to innovation. Being expert, critic's work should outstanding and have unique insight, it palpitate author's heart, make reader and craftsman feeling not equal to himself from insight. In the historical of literary criticism, there are criticism subject who highly focus on the relationship of literature and society, literature and people, and criticism subject who have a sharply appreciate ability that are good at discovering author's innovation factor in one side, ex. Bie, Che, Du. In another side, there is criticism subject who inhospitality treat his critic object and absolutely make nothing of his judgment of value, such as Man orchid. Critic's nature of subject and character is building again and again in the practice of literary criticism, and in the talking to criticism object. When literary critic's judgment ability growing to fit the nature request of literary criticism ---- innovation, their subjection and character growing clearly and specially, including not only the criticism object's appreciation form and content, but also his technique of using appreciation words. Critic's nature of subject and character need practical and realistic, conviction with basis, but also depend on vehemence to overwhelming other or talking without basis.

文本基础主义论 王汶成 山东大学文艺美学研究中心

提要:这里所说的文本基础主义不同于新批评的“文本中心主义”。新批评的文本中心主义把文本看作是完全封闭的语言结构,认为对文本意义的阐释只是通过对文本语言结构的分析就足够了,至于对文本所赖以产生的社会历史文化背景的研究则是可有可无,无关紧要的,甚至对文本的写作者和接受者的研究也是多余的,被斥之为“意图谬误”和“感受谬误”。文本中心主义几乎割断了文本的所有的外部联系,把文本作为一个完全孤立的物品抽取出来进行研究,这种研究在文本语言结构这一个方面的确深入了,但同时也在学理上迷失于文本之所以存在的那些必然的外部联系之中。而文本基础主义是以承认文本的所有必然的和可能的外部联系为前提的,它认为文本不是一个孤立的自足的实体性的存在,而是一个与整个外部世界、创作主体、接受主体、其他相关文本有着不可分割的普遍联系的全面开放式的关系性存在。正是以这种理念为前提,文本基础主义主张文学研究无论怎样向外拓展都始终不脱离文本研究这个基础。文本是文学的基础(不是中心,更不是本体),文本研究也是文学研究的基础。文学研究离开了文本研究的基础无异于文学研究的自虐和自戕。

文本基础主义的“文本”概念是与“语言”概念不可分的,没有语言就没有文本,犹如没有文本就没有文学。文本与语言互为载体。因此,文本基础主义反对目前流行的各种形式的“泛文本”概念,这种泛文本概念把一切即存的事实都看作是一种有待阐释的文本,如历史文本、社会文本、文化文本等等,这实际上就等于消解了语言文本的文本性和文本语言的语言性。泛文本概念仅仅是在比喻的意义上才能成立,而在严格的学理的意义上是不能成立的。所以泛文本概念实际上指的是一种“拟文本”。而文本基础主义说的文本则是指一切语言文本或能够表达意义的符号文本,所谓文学研究以文本研究为基础就是指以文学作品和与文学作品相关的语言文本为基础。

文本基础主义的理论要点主要是:

第一,文本基础主义坚守文学研究的学科本位。文学本身就是一种极为复杂的关系性存在,文学研究也必是一种综合性的跨学科研究。但是“跨”学科研究不是“跳”学科研究,文学研究的一只脚可以跨到或社会学、或心理学、或历史学、或政治学、或经济学、或文化学等等的领域,但它的另一只脚必须牢牢地踏在文本研究上,否则,文学研究就可能丧失属于自己的“根据地”和学科独立性,就可能沦为其他学科的附庸。文学研究的综合性当然也要求打通学科界限,但打通学科界限也不是不要学科界限,更不是自毁学科界限。文本基础主义在反对狭隘学科主义的同时,也以其文本研究的基础而坚守了文学研究的学科本位。

第二,文本基础主义坚守文学研究的实证原则。任何研究都要遵循科学研究的实证原则,文学研究也不例外。文学研究的实证性就来自与文本研究相关的大量的第一手的文学材料和文学经验,只有这种从文本研究中获得的材料和经验才能成为文学研究一切结论的最有说服力的实证性支持和依据。当前某些“跳”学科的文学研究和所谓打破学科边界的完全不要学科规限的文化研究,由于已经跳离和破除了文本研究这个基础,往往流于大而无当夸夸其谈和毫无实证根据的信口开河。这些实在都是一切学术研究的大忌。

第三,文本基础主义坚守文学研究的对话精神。任何文本都同其他文本构成一种历时态和共时态的纵横交叉的内在关联,都是一种所谓“间性文本”和“互文本”。文学研究只有以文本研究为基础,才能真正认识到任何文本都有存在的合法性,才能真正发现文本之间的内在性关联,才能真正建立起“间性文本”和“互文本”的现代观念,从而使文学研究贯穿一种现代的“兼容精神”和“对话精神”。而离开了文本研究的基础,就等于出让了文本的第一发言权,文学研究就只好依赖于单纯的思辨理性,依赖于具有当下权威性的观念和体系,这样一来,就很容易导向学术独断和权力话语。而这些也是束缚学术发展的大障。

第四,文本基础主义坚守文学研究的人文指向。文学是人学,文学无论怎么发展变化都不可能放弃为了人自身更完美、人的生活更幸福这一终极的追求和目标。文学史上所有经过了几十年、几百年乃至几千年的历史淘选而流传下来的文本,都是所谓经典文本,流传的时间越是久长,文本的经典性越强。过去、现在以至将来的所有具有经典性的文本都一定或多或少、或这样或那样地体现着文学的人文指归。从这个意义上说,文学的经典性就是文学的人文性。文本基础主义主张以文本研究为文学研究的基础,主要就是指研究那些经过了一定时期的优胜劣汰而传布下来的经典性文本,而不是指研究那些绝少人文气息的自生自灭的一过性文本,更不是指研究那些已被彻头彻尾物化了的纯粹以赚钱为目的文学垃圾。注意,我这里说的是“主要是指”,并不是说不能研究那些已经被物化了的文学读物,也不是说研究那样的文学读物没有价值。相反,这样的文学读物应该得到深入的研究,至少可以使我们在如何摆脱文学的物化倾向、回归文学的人学目标方面获得理论的参照和启示。因此,文本基础主义所主张的回到文本研究,绝不是像通常所理解的回到一种琐细的专业技术性研究,而是对文学的人文指向的一种更为切实的回归,因而也是对文学研究的人文指向的一种更为切实的回归。

比较视野中的文学理论教材编写 曾军 上海大学中文系

提要:针对近年来的文艺学学科反思,本文在中国二十世纪近百年文艺学学科发展史背景上,将新中国文学理论教材编写置于现代中国、前苏联和当代西方的比较视野中予以考察。认为,新中国草创时期的文学理论没有完全照搬“前苏联体系”,而是体现出了“中国化”的努力;八九十年代文学理论的繁荣呈现出明显的“美学化”倾向;近些年来尽管争论不断,但是文学理论的“文化化”趋势却是一致的。文学理论没有走向终结,而是在继续创新。

女性文学主体性论纲 李玲 北京语言大学人文学院

提要:本文是在目的论(teleology)层面上探索女性文学主体性建构的问题,是从可能的维度而非现实已然存在的状态探究女性文学的应然性质。

①隐含作者的女性主体性。作为确立女性文学内涵的女性主体性,无疑应是专指隐含作者的女性主体性,而非作品中女性人物的主体性或叙述者的主体性;而且,此种主体性应是剔除了霸权的、经过现代修正的主体性,因而实际上是一种主体间性。从表现对象来说,女性文学可以表现张扬女性主体性的生活场景,也可以表现女性主体性沉沦的图景;可以刻划具有女性主体意识的人物,也可以刻划无主体性的女性人物或反女性主体性的男性人物或倒置性承袭男性霸权的女性人物。关键是女性文学在观照各种生活场景和各色人物的时候,必须贯彻尊重女性主体性而并不建构任何霸权的价值立场。这种价值立场以各种方式渗透于文本中,终必是隐含作者的一种文化态度。关注叙述学理论,区分隐含作者立场与作品中人物立场的差别,可以有效地避免混淆作品价值取向与作品表现对象的失误。

②女性隐含作者与男性人物。当女性隐含作者面对作品中持霸权观念的男性人物时,其敏锐的批判态度中必然包含着深切的悲悯。对生命的大爱是女性文学的根基。当女性隐含作者面对作品中具有主体间性思维的男性时,其赞赏的态度中必然含着灵犀相通的喜悦。追寻“比较之前”体验到的终极价值,是女性文学的目的论意义。在目的论层面上,女性文学应能超越奴隶道德中的怨恨之气,而具备“与世界和实事本身直接沟通”的高贵气度。

③女性隐含作者与女性人物。隐含作者与人物即使同为女性,她们之间仍然不是未被分化的混沌的同一体,而是两个独立的主体。她们之间的关系也应该是主体间的关系。把女性人物视为女性隐含作者的同一体,是女性主体意识初步兴起时期的特征。女性文学主体意识比较成熟的作品中,女性隐含作者不仅与笔下男性人物而且与笔下女性人物构成主体间的对话关系,女性隐含作者对女性人物既有深层共鸣又有反思审视。

Abstract: The subjectivity of the feminine literature, which is the foundation of the feminine literature, refers to the subjectivity of the implied female author, rather than the subjectivity of the female character in or narrator of the writings. Indeed, the subjectivity of the feminine literature is a kind of inter-subjectivity, as it has been seceded from the hegemony. The feminine literature shall establish the dialogic relationship between implied female authors, and the female as well as the male characters. From the perspective of teleology, the feminine literature should watch the authentic male and female beings, and seek all possible dimensions of life so as to surpass the resentment.

差异与反思:叶维廉的传释学理论 张晓梅 中国社会科学院文学研究所

提要:叶维廉的学术研究大概包括依据其基本理论进行的比较诗学、比较文学批评实践、跨文化传递的批评理论和翻译实践三个部分。本文主要梳理了叶维廉的传释学观念。认为其独到之处表现在两个方面:一是对作者、作品和读者关系的独特理解;二是对传统和权威的批评与反思。

结构与世界 王先晋 武汉大学外语学院

提要:结构既自足又与世界曲径通幽。结构使我们了解世界并最终使我们生活在世界上。研究艺术作品的叙述结构与深层结构使我们贴近“全球”。构化艺术作品结构改变已扭曲的“社会结构与世界结构”。笔者以为结构研究家不仅需要带领我们去理清历史的因果,而且需要带领我们去经历新历史和“迷宫”。

无论是天赐神授的自然之物,还是人类介入的人为之物,结构是其最缜密的概念,其中艺术结构刚柔悉备,高华清逸。。我理解中的表层结构走向意味是通过背景下(场所)约定俗成的情节及时空结构符号的规约性。深层结构走向意味是通过人类学模式与作者的意识结构模式融合。A)深层结构是意义(味,情感)模式而非行动模式。它在艺术结构系统中尤为重要。深层结构的最佳状态能达到哲学的水准,达到宗教的水准。三者最佳状态是互通的。当艺术达到极致(深层结构)哲学宗教化不可避免。深层结构性质类似中国化的禅,它的否定和超越及亲征与前者有相通之处。B)人类学模式变异复杂及模糊性集中突显了艺术结构的开放性(不稳固性和涵盖性)。研究作品结构的过程主要是破解潜结构和深层结构。

总之我们越从人类与世界互惠的观念出发探索艺术结构,就越能摸清“大象”,人类需要一个“有机的体系……去使世界重新适合人的生存”。构化结构及信仰“系统”的认知范式使我们“出世”。我们中国人的思维模式更适配艺术结构研究方法的运用。特别中国人思维方式中最主要量素“变化性”,用来研究千奇百态的艺术结构更具适应性。

构化经典作品的结构不仅需要解读者的努力,而且需要能正确理解其的哲理时空。作品深层结构离开了哲理时空,就停止了生命,它还可能存在,但要停止发展。深层结构是同哲理时空一起发展的。

现代寓言呼唤“阐释理论”——新时期以降汉语叙事形式转型的理论诉求

冯尚 汕头大学中文系

提要:新时期文学叙事的目标之一是呈现人生现实的苦恼、社会的苦难,并且把启蒙主义作为观察和评论人生、社会的基本立场,在此基础上实现从文体到精神的转型,也就是象征主义的出现,这里所指是伤痕文学、反思文学和寻根文学,并且在寻根文学那里达到表现的极致,以至在“自然”的诗情画意中达到怡然自得的陶醉,似乎汉语叙事找到了呈现世界、表现自我的不二法门。“自然”再次以古典的温情和暖意弥漫在叙事文本的边边角角,以至文学“哲理”成为文学评价尺度的标高。

其实在思想上启蒙主义、叙事技术上象征主义的主流甚嚣尘上之时,对人生复杂性、世界诡异性把握的尝试一直是余波荡漾,更有甚者,就是循走在象征主义大道上的明锐的叙事者,也徘徊在寓言叙事的边缘,也就是已经具有了叙事的含混性,用学术术语就是隐喻性强烈而明确地显示出来。这就是张承志、莫言、韩少功等人的作品。执著于启蒙主义路上的韩少功,已经尝试把握“意象”,以为只有意象才能破解人生的吊诡。这里指的是他在《女女女》中创造的“鱼人”意象。

天空和大地已经黯淡之后,象征的依据分崩离析,终极的地平线也已经支离破碎,在审美世界已经没有了统一的力量,而这个精神的世界曾经由“自然”顽强地支撑着,而自然竟然无法面对变动不居,起落无定的世道人心。在一派机器轰鸣、技术作祟的田野、乡村、城市,诗意何在,诗人何为?主义、思想、理论真是“纷纷世上潮”。富裕、繁荣、文明的此情此景,哪里还有栖居之点?《九月寓言》讲述的就是这样的故事,它揭发了自然的虚伪,残酷和诱惑,重新把现代中国与战火纷飞的春秋战国时代勾连起来,再次使我们的文学回荡起“天道靡常”的神秘之声;同时,《九月寓言》重新提出“物象”的智慧之学,由此庄子的古典寓言观念重新成为当下寓言美学的基本参照。

Abstract: It was an aim of the novels of the New Epic to express life’s suffering and misery , the life and social problems were severely criticized by the authors from the views of enlightenment. They fulfiled a reform of a kind of literary forms. So that a symbolism was created by them. The school of Xungen (寻根派) represent main type of symbolism. Nature seemly become a panacea of solving social and self problems. So a quality suggestive of poetry or painting from nature becomes literary criterion. Philosophic theory of a text has been thought of the most important thing in literature.

In fact, though the enlightenment and the symbolism were becoming popular during the time, a school of narrating mysteriously nature and life is never disappear. Moreover, some authors expressed their feelings of nature with many and varied metaphors. Zhang Chengzhi(张承志), Moyan(莫言), and Han Shaogong(韩少功)are three typical characters of them. They made used of imagery(意象) to attempt to convey absurdity of life.

The earth has being undermined since modernization. Nature has not only hardly fully supported aesthetic activity, but also not comfort sad and uneasy men in our times. Modern machinery is capturing all many sides of our lives, so we have to ask these questions: where can our aesthetic feelings be created? What could do the truly poets in our times? The novel , Allegory of September, shows a cruelty, hypocrisy, and temptation from nature; it arouses readers to pay attention to the ancient wisdom of ‘visible phenomena(物象) in Chinese culture. So Chuang-tzus (庄子) theory of allegory nowadays start afresh the grounds to understand modern narrative poetics.

生态美学如何可能? 杨平 北京第二外国语学院跨文化研究所

提要:20世纪90年代以来,“生态美学”成为中国当代文艺美学“前沿问题”。然而,“生态美学”在学科概念、理论框架、阐释维度和学科定位都存在诸多问题。在理论层面上,“生态美学”的文化资源非常单一,“生态美学”与“生态美” “环境”、“生态”等概念也晦涩不清。在实践层面上,生态美学忽视了“应用美学”的维度,因此,缺乏现实的针对性。从理论的形态上看,有时,“生态美学”类似“纯粹哲学”,有时,“生态美学”类似“环境伦理学”。基于这些问题,本文从利奥波德的《沙乡年鉴》来理解“生态美学”的基本问题,尝试回答“生态美学”如何可能的问题。

论近30年中国儿童电影批评范式的流变 马力 沈阳师范大学文学院

提要:近30年是中国儿童电影批评最活跃的时期,不仅批评成果与日俱增,而且批评范式连番更迭。20世纪80年代中国儿童电影批评的主要范式是“求真型”批评,这种批评范式是改革开放以来,中国电影理论界接受了西方电影理论——法国安德烈·巴赞的“纪实理论”的影响,尽管中国理论界对巴赞存在着误读,但是它却“包含着一种空前的、对电影媒介的自觉”。这种批评范式以“真实”和“有用”作为“事实成规”,展开新时期以来的儿童电影批评,重在揭示电影作为一种虚拟的艺术与外部真实世界之间的关系,以“真实”、“有用”为美。新时期之初,中国儿童电影批评家就是以这种“求真型”批评取代了意识形态批评话语。

到了20世纪90年代“求真型”批评范式又被本体批评范式取而代之,这种批评范式同样是在西方本体批评方法的影响下形成的。它表明批评界已经开始将儿童电影当作一种独立的艺术形式来认识。中国儿童电影本体批评的关键词有三个:“成长”、“儿童情趣”、“艺术想象”。在对“成长”是中国儿童电影永恒的主题,本体批评的特色在于,批评家们从不同的视角切入文本,采用不同的批评理论作支撑,批评方法也不同,因此对“成长”的阐释各不相同,不但对不同的电影文本的阐释如此,对同一文本的阐释也如此。对“儿童情趣”的阐释则重在电影声画、电影语言等营造儿童情趣特殊手段的揭示上。“艺术想象”是儿童电影的核心元素。批评家们从剧本、情节结构、人物塑造、梦境、特技等各个方面来批评文本的想象力的重要性,抓住了儿童电影创作的关键问题。

20世纪90年代末至今中国儿童电影的文化批评方兴未艾。在批评新时期以来的中国儿童电影时,文化批评重在揭示电影中隐藏的文化内涵,以及它对儿童潜移默化的文化影响。关键词是种族、阶级和性别。批评家们结合电影创作实际,指出了中国儿童电影中一些西方孩子身上存在的西方白人是最优秀的种族、鄙视东方弱小民族的意识;揭示了市场经济体制与现代传媒影响下儿童新的级差意识的产生;以及一些影片中潜隐地表现出的成人重男轻女思想。然而儿童影片永远是浪漫的,它不但揭示问题,而且总是提出解决问题的设想,给儿童正确德引导。文化批评标志着中国儿童电影批评的最高成就。

中国儿童电影批评范式的不断刷新,是改革开放以来国人思想不断进步,中国电影理论与西方电影理论不断碰撞、融合,从而得到迅速发展的缩影,它的根基是近30年中国儿童电影的长足进步。虽然受到种种条件的限制,中国儿童电影的批评声音还显得微弱,但它绝非“不入主流话语”,更非“缺乏适应新阶段和新形式的理论探讨”,而是与时俱进,不断更新。这些为弱者呼号的宝贵的批评声音正是中国儿童电影独特理论体系建立的基础。

Abstract: It is the most active period of Chinese children film criticism in the past 30 years, not only the criticism achievement grows day by day, but also criticism model change one by one. The main model of Chinese children film criticism was “to be true”. This kind of criticism model has accepted Western movie theory’s influence - - France Andrew Bazan’s “on-the-spot report theory” since the reform and open policy in 1980s. Though Chinese movie theorists may not understand it clearly, it contains one kind of actually unprecedented determination to the movie medium. This kind of criticism model launches new children film with " true " and " useful " conduct as" established fact ", focus on expressing the relationship between true world and fictitious art , " true " and " useful "being regarded as “beauty”. At the beginning of the new period, Chinese movie theorists adopted “to be true” film criticism, instead of ideology criticism.

In 1990s, “to be true” film criticism model has been replaced by noumeon criticism form, which is also under the influence of western noumenon criticism. It indicates that the critical circles have begun to regard “Chinese children film” as an independent art form. There are three key words: growth, children temperament and interest; art imagination.” Grow up “is an eternal film theme of Chinese children. The characteristic of noumenon criticism lies in different criticism aspects, different criticism theories, and different criticism methods adopted by criticism theorists. So there are different interpretations of “grow up”, not only in different films, but also in the same film. Explanation in “children temperament and interest " make a key point in film sound picture, film language and other special methods. The key element of children film is “art imagination”. Critics criticize the importance of imagination from each aspect, such as the script, the plot structure, the characterization, the dreamland, the stunt and so on, having held the key question that the children movie creates.

From the end of 1990s till now, the Chinese children movie cultural criticism are on the rise. When criticizing the Chinese children movies in the new time, cultural criticism mainly reveal the cultural connotation which hides in the revelation movies, as well as its cultural influence to children .The key words are race, social class and sex. On the basis of the movie creation reality, critics has pointed out the phenomenon in the Chinese movie that some western Caucasian children have the consciousness of outstanding race, despising the Eastern small and weak nationality, has promulgated new grading consciousness under the influence of market economy system and the modern media, has displayed the thought of regarding men as superior to women in some movies as well. However, the children movie is romantic forever. It not only reveals questions, but also always proposes tentative plans to solve the questions, offering good guides for children. The cultural criticism symbolized the highest achievement in the field of Chinese children movie criticism.

The unceasing model revolution of Chinese children movie criticism is the rapid development miniature after people unceasing thought progresses since reform and open policy has been adopted, the unceasing collision and fusion between Chinese movie theory and Western movie theory. Its foundation is the great strides made in Chinese children movie in the last 30 year. Though it is under all sorts of limited conditions, the criticism of Chinese children movie sound weakly, it does not means that it can not enter the mainstream or lacks new theory discussion adapted in the new stage, while it keeps pace with the times, renews unceasingly. These precious criticism sounds for the weak one are precisely the foundation of unique theory system establishment of Chinese children movie.

文革记忆与现代文艺美学的构建 孙小光 河南理工大学人文政法学院

提要:“文革”文学的出现和繁荣并不是一个偶然的瞬间,而是特定时代与文化背景下的情感裁定。在这个政治与狂欢的氛围中体味文学的生存,在文革的记忆中重新挖掘时代的精神证词和文学理想,关乎着理论的现代性重构和现代文艺美学的构建。“文革”文学本身就是国家美学的一种自发性的探索。国家美学追求的是政治与民众的结合,是文学大众化的努力,寻求着和谐文化的建构。现代文艺美学理论的建构可以更全面地展示现代文学艺术的文体特征和艺术规律,促进文学的发展和繁荣。

本尼特、罗伊尔《文学、批评与理论导论》对我国文学理论研究及教材编写的启示

汪正龙 南京大学中文系

提要:安德鲁·本尼特和尼古拉·罗伊尔的《文学、批评与理论导论》属于西方核心范畴、问题或关键词文学理论教材模式的代表作,其不采用先验理论预设、以文学问题为核心的思维模式和知识建构模式,对文学理论阐释文学作品的功能的重视,以及将其他知识与文化形态纳入文学研究视野的做法,对我国文学理论研究和文学理论教材编写具有重要的启示意义。

Abstracts: The book an Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory by Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle is a representative among the literary theory teaching materials in a keywords-oriented pattern. It avoids any theoretical presupposition, offers a new mode of thinking and knowledge construction with the focus on key concepts and literary problems, and brings other modalities of knowledge and culture into the field of literary studies. This pattern provides significant revelations for the research on and the redaction of teaching materials of literary theory in China.

从现象学到形式主义美学—夏目漱石《文学论》意义新解

张小玲 中国海洋大学外语学院日语系

提要:日本明治初年西方“literature”概念的输入,使得源自汉文化圈的“文”“史”“哲”一体的大文学概念产生巨大变化,这种变化带来的精神断裂让夏目漱石开始追寻超越国别的文学的共通规律,并由此在接受美学兴起半个多世纪以前便自觉选择了读者心理作为《文学论》一书的根本出发点。在书中,漱石提出了(F+f)的文学公式,并对此进行了颇具有现象学文论特征的解释。但他并没有过多停留于胡塞尔式的意识分析上,而是很快将目光集中到文本语言,着重于探讨文学语言的隐喻性和物质性,从而转向了形式主义式的文论研究。所以,在酝酿于十九世纪末并出版于一九零八年的这本《文学论》中,隐含着现象学-接受美学及语言学-形式主义美学这两大二十世纪西方主要文学理论流派的影子,仅此一点,此书就应该得到高度评价和重新认识。夏目漱石作为文学理论家的地位也应该毫无质疑地被加以承认。

Abstract: In the early years of the Meiji period in Japan, the importation of western concept of Literature greatly changed the main literary concept originating from Chinese Cultural Circles, which took Literature, History, and Philosophy as a whole. Such kind of conceptual alteration effected a split in mind. Under this influence, Natumesouseki set about pursuing universal laws of literature. At the same time, he chose readers’ psychology, half a century earlier than the rise of reception aesthetics, as the starting point of Elaboration on Literature . In Elaboration on Literature he put forward the literary formula “F+f” and rendered an explanation characteristic of phenomenological literary theory. But instead of confining himself to conscious analysis of Husserl’s model, Natumesouseki focused on the textual language, laying emphasis on metaphoricality and materiality of literary language. Thus, he applied formalism to literal theory study. The book Elaboration on Literature, brewed at the end of the 19th century and published in 1908, finds the trace of phenomenology-reception aesthetics and linguistics-formalism aesthetics, the two schools which dominated western literary theory in the 20th century. With this respect, it deserves high appreciation and re-interpretation. Natumesouseki should undoubtedly be acknowledged as a great literary theorist.

论新时期颓废主义文学思潮流变及成因 吴家荣 安徽大学中文系

提要:新时期颓废主义文学思潮以批判僵化文艺思想的斗士面目出现,它对新时期文学创作的繁荣、对文学创作从内容到形式的鼎革有过不可忽略的成就,对推动中国文学走向世界也有过重要的贡献,然而,当它跌落到唯美、唯乐、唯我的颓而淫的泥淖之中时,曾经有过的光彩顿时黯然失色,于是,人们有理由期盼新理性主义的精神复归文坛.

Abstract: Decadent literary trend of the new period presented itself as a fighter against rigid literary trend with its contributions to prosperity of literature and transformation from the content and form, and introduction of Chinese literature into the world. These achievements cannot be overlooked. However, when it was degenerated into the decadency of beauty, pleasure and egoism even filth, its previous glory got eclipsed. Nevertheless, we have reasons to expect the return of the neo-rationalism to the literary world.

新世纪·新领域—小学教育本科专业“文学概论”课程建设 钟名诚 南京晓庄学院教育学院

提要:1998年南京师范大学晓庄学院首开招收小学教育本科专业学生,培养本科层次的小学教师,该校小学教育本科专业采用22的培养模式。前两年为大专业,主要开设公共类课程、教育类课程、教师基本技能类课程,后两年分为三个学科方向:中文学科、数学学科、英语学科。后两年的中文学科方向主要开设中文类课程,与大学中文系的课程类似,主要包括:现代汉语、古代汉语、汉字学、中国古代文学、中国现当代文学、外国文学、文学概论、写作、儿童文学等必修课程,此外还开设比较文学研究、通俗文学研究、文学名著选读、影视文学鉴赏等中文类任意选修课程。

此后,许多师范院校均开办了小学教育本科专业,计划模式虽然有一定的差异,中文方向(有的学校称文科方向)均开设了“文学概论”这门课程。因此,新世纪的到来,“文学概论”课程从大学中文专业延伸到了小学教育专业,拓展了“文学概论”的教学领域。

面对“文学概论”课程的新领域,课程内容的改革就成了迫切需要解决的问题,目前大部分学校小学教育专业都使用中文专业的“文学概论”教材,并没有体现出小学教育专业“文学概论”课程的特色。近几年来,一些有识之士已经开始专门为小学教育专业编写“文学概论”教材。如:扬州大学姚文放教授主编的高等学校小学教育专业教材《文学概论》(2000年南京大学出版社出版),东北师范大学王确教授主编的大学本科小学教育专业教材《文学概论》(2003年人民教育出版社)。这两本教材在教学内容的设置上,除保持了中文专业“文学概论”课程的内容外,还“体现了小教本科专业培养目标的针对性”,但“尚处在起步阶段”。

小学教育本科专业的“文学概论”课程建设是新世纪的新课题,需要思考的问题也很多。笔者认为,建设小学教育本科专业的“文学概论”课程,至少需要思考以下几个问题:一是课程的内容体系必须具有“文学概论”的完整性,二是不能照搬中文专业的“文学概论”内容体系,三是要体现小学教育本科专业的特色,四是要体现小学教育专业的培养目标。

Abstract: In 1998, for the first time of its kind, Xiaozhuang College at Nanjing Normal University, enrolled undergraduate students majoring in Elementary Education, who are trained to be primary school teachers. This program adopted the 2+2 education model,, in which, in the first 2 years, designed as an associate program which provided public courses, educational courses and basic teaching skills, while in the second 2 years, divided into three specialties as Chinese, math and English. The Chinese specialty is designed like that in the Universities, which includes obligatory courses such as Modern Chinese, Ancient Chinese, Study of Chinese characters, Ancient Chinese literature, Modern Chinese literature, Foreign literature, A Brief Introduction to Literature, writing, Literature for the Children and so on, meanwhile selective courses such as comparative literature, popular(folk) literature, reading of selected literature classics, and taste of movie and TV literature.

Ever since, other normal colleges, one after another, imitated this model, by providing undergraduate level education program majoring in primary education, with a few differences between one another, while in Chinese specialty(some named it art specialty) they all provide the course:, A Brief Introduction to Literature, thereby, with the coming of the new century, this course had extended its feelers from the Chinese majors into the primary education majors at colleges, which had broadened the teaching arena of literature education.

When faced with this new arena, the reform of the contents of this course is a pressing problem to be solved immediately. At present most of the primary education specialty colleges are using A Brief Introduction to Literature, the textbook designed for Chinese specialty, which can not highlight the specialty attributed to primary education. Only in recent years, some well-aware intellectuals are specially compiling a literature textbook suitable for primary education.For instance, A Brief Introduction to Literature Course for Higher Education, compiled by professor Yao Wenfang et. all of Yangzhou University, Nanjing University Press,2000;A Brief Introduction to Literature Course for Undergraduate level primary education majors, compiled by professor Wang Que of Northeast Normal University, People’s Education Press, 2003. Both of the above books have, in the designing of the contents, while maintaining the contents arranged for Chinese Majors, “presented the pertinence to the aims for primary education undergraduates ”,however, “both are still at its starting stage”.

The establishment of the program—A Brief Introduction to Literature Course for Undergraduate level primary education majors—is a new project in the new century, which needs to take many things into consideration. The writer of this article holds the idea that at least the following must be considered: firstly, its content system must have the completeness of A Brief Introduction to Literature; secondly, it cannot thoroughly copy the content system of A Brief Introduction to Literature Course for Undergraduate level Chinese majors; thirdly , it must presents the special aspects attributed to primary education; fourthly, it must be pertinent to the aims set for primary education.

略论90年代以来的主体物化 张文初 湖南师范大学文学院

提要:一百年以前,特拉克尔痛苦地吟唱:哦,人的形象多么腐败,/冷酷的金属拼凑而成,笼罩着莽林的黑夜和恐怖/动物的焦渴的兽性把人牵连,/灵魂已风一般地归于寂静。

一百年来,特拉克尔所恐怖的物化在全世界强势地推进了。中国上世纪90年代以来的历史正是物化凯歌行进的历史。这一历史到现在为止,可以划分为四个阶段:92年以前:政治层面的恐怖与凄伤带来精神追求的迷惘;9295,功利主体性的猛然勃发对精神主体的痛苦淹没;962003,依靠体制化大众化等手段功利主体欲望主体全面强化使精神主体在麻木与无奈中进一步衰落;从03到现在,在物化以其惯性的力量进一步严重推进的同时某种微弱的反弹性因素出现。

中国物化的表现形式和特征主要有下列几个方面。①远身性追求的败落。一边是堂而皇之的宣布:“一地鸡毛”,“躲避崇高”,“人生无梦到中年”,“哭也好,笑也好,活着就好”。另一边是心有不甘的追问:“我们还能在已变得像一张花里胡哨的招贴画一样的城市风景面前感到那‘灵晕’的笼罩,并想起这是我们父辈生活过、并留下他们的印记和梦想的地方吗?我们还能在自己的日益空洞的时间中感到那想‘停下来唤醒死者,把破碎的一切修补完整’的天使的忧郁,感到那‘狂暴地吹击着他的翅膀’,被人称为‘进步’的风暴吗?”

②话语的功利化欲望化;③肉感淹没美感;④保存性压倒创造性。保存性是肉体生命的基本机制,是人生物性的基本模式。创造性是人作为精神主体的主要特征。保存性压倒创造性是主体物化在生存机制上的主要表现。

90年代以来的中国主体物化是由当代中国社会现实、异域思潮和传统文化交互作用造成的。要指出的是,异域思潮,比如说西方的后现代主义,实际上是反物化的,但在中国却反向地变成了推进物化的力量。物化作为历史进程在高杨人的物质性存在方面有一定的合理性。但物“化”是人的主体性的沦丧,是人生命的碎裂与失败。

试论文学的“自觉”与“不自觉” 刘惠文 河北经贸大学

提要:本文试图从文学活动的理论阐述即文学概念和规律的阐述,实践阐述即文学活动现象亦即文学创作理论锻造、文学创作活动实际现象、文学创作成果文本或其它样式、文学创作活动批评的阐述,审视文学的“自觉”与“不自觉”,推论出在文学的“自觉”与“不自觉”二者之间,没有什么清晰可辨的必然界限。而且,文学活动只可能是、或者就是、或者就总是在这二者之间所进行、所展开。在今天——21世纪之初的社会里,话语以往权威的被摧毁以及话语新权威的重构已难于成为现实,则目前就像一堆“破玻璃渣子”跺在那里一样,因而文学适宜在“自觉”与“不自觉”之间进行,让历史的不断积淀和审美愉悦的时代变化,来重新锻造文学创作的指导理论和重新抉择文学创作的发展方向。

Abstract: This paper attempts to expound from the theory of literary activities, which is the concept and the law governing the exposition. From practice expounded, which is activities described literary phenomenon also is forging theoretical literature, literature activities actual phenomenon, the text of literature results or other styles, The elaboration of literary criticism creative activities presented by the literary review of the "conscious" and " non-conscious" Inferred from the literature of the "conscious" and "non-conscious" between the two facts is no clear and discernible limits of the inevitable, and literary activities can only be or is, or is it always in between the two facts, have started. Today -- 21-century society, Discourse authority of the past were destroyed and the authority of the new discourse reconstruction has been difficult to become a reality. Currently it is like a pile of "bare-breaking" Provided there, Literature thus is suitable for the "conscious" and "non-conscious" between the two facts, Let history of the continuous accumulation and aesthetic pleasure of the changes of the era, Forging language to re-create the guiding theory and the choice of literary re-creation of the direction of development.

收藏文章

阅读数[48655]
百年·红楼梦 网络文化与文学研究
网友评论 更多评论
如果您已经注册并经审核成为“中国文学网”会员,请 登录 后发表评论; 或者您现在 注册成为新会员

诸位网友,敬请谨慎网上言行,切莫对他人造成伤害。
验证码: