【作者】 余夏云；

【导师】 季进；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 比较文学与世界文学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 本文从“现代文学”作为开放、未完的建制这一基本认识入手，探讨了“海外中国现代文学研究”对它的增益和建设作用。我有意打破内外之别的界限，尝试引入“文学场域”的理念，把世界范围内针对中国现代文学的各种研究活动和成果视为一个有机的“现代文学研究场”。我特别就其中的英语世界的情况做出了说明和探讨。通过综合性地应用和修正布迪厄、奚密等人有关文学场域及游戏颠覆者的理念，我把海外世界的主要研究成果视为一种类似于蝴蝶效应式的有益探索和尝试，而非一锤定音式的转变或颠覆。这种观念有力地避开了过分夸大或贬义海外汉学的研究思路，提出了要历史性地、长时段地观察海外汉学价值的理念。我从四个方面总结了这些价值。它们依次是“去冷战”、“去殖民”、“去帝国”和“去典范”。“去”字的本意，在这里，不是根除、清空，而是保持距离，以一种更为审慎态度来面对其所要“去”的对象。这些对象或者同具体的历史经验有关，或者同新的时代语境有涉，还或者源于学科内部的某些定式、定见。在某种意义上，它们限制了我们对现代文学和文化做出更为深入、透彻的省思，干扰着我们的理解。为此，它们需要不断地被凝视和检讨。我用“去冷战”来反省研究中的“二元对抗思路”，并就“文学”与“政治”的关系做出了具体的梳理和探讨。应当看到，无论过去海外学界对两者关系的讨论如何深透，其基本的思路依然不脱在两者之间做出辩证，从而忽略了从外部引入新的参量来重新思考其关系的可能。而这种理解在新近关于性别的研讨中已经开始有力凸显。我探讨了作为社会文本和批评立场的两种女性观，并指出其对二元关系所带来的新的挑战，其中包括全面改写和修订整个文化和社会阐释机制的问题。“去殖民”的讨论，着力就殖民历史与殖民遗留的问题做出分析。我举证了史书美、周蕾、石静远等三位女性学者的思考，看其如何就“半殖民”的理念做出拆解，或者由“后殖民”的理论捕获洞见，甚至直接从“被殖民”的经历之中发掘出建设现代民族国家的力量。她们的讨论，揭橥了埋藏于“殖民”话语之中的等级观念，在分析其巨大危害的同时，也指明这种等级观念有可能被反转、利用的一面。“去帝国”则把目光聚焦于一个世纪以来西方文化不断渗入，特别是到了全球化的语境下，我们该如何有效地营建新的身份意识和文学认同的问题。通过分析，我们将看到研究者们立定主体性的立场，强化能动观念，发出了基于过去、现在和未来三个不同时间面相的诉求和思考。他们或者通过重返历史，探索帝国话语机制的生成；或者借由直面现实语境，召唤抵御帝国思维侵扰的法门；还或者通过设计其可能走向的办法，积极谋求一个超帝国的文化空间与学术构造体系。从外部的语境往回转，我试图重新梳理学术史和文学史上那些被视为理所当然的现象或概念。我以“去典范”的理念来统摄这方面的考察。我将指明包括鲁迅、“五四”、现实主义等在内的观念，经历了“经典化”的塑造，已经有了一种排他的特性或者自我净化的表现，所以它们需要被历史性地重审，或者通过引入外部参照系统的方式来加以还原和恢复。在经过了以上四个主题的分章讨论之后，我将在最后的结论中，总体性地检讨这些不同的方面所带出的共通性的问题，其中包括一种被不同利益所驱动的知识生产形态、一种以普世主义为核心的一元论式的帝国审美，甚至还有一种以偏概全、反复利用，直至其对象透支的学术研究方式。更多还原

【Abstract】 Based on the idea that the Modern Chinese Literature is an opening, unfinishedconstruction, this paper discusses the value of Overseas Studies on Modern ChineseLiterature. I break the limits between home and overseas on purpose, try to introduce theLiterature Field Theory, and take all the research activities and productions which focus onor about Modern Chinese literature as an organic Research Field. I especially analyze thesituation of English world. Through applying and modifying Pierre Bourdieu’s FieldTheory and Michelle Yeh’s idea about Game-Changer comprehensively, I regard theOverseas Studies on Modern Chinese Literature as a beneficial exploration ofButterfly-effect style, rather than a final transformation or subversion, which effectivelykeeps the understanding away from been either exaggerated or despised. In other words, itreminds us that a historic, long time observation is required. I discuss these values fromfour aspects. They are de-Cold War, decolonization, de-Empire, and de-paradigm.The prefix “De-” in this paper means keeping distance and adopting a more cautiousattitude, rather than eradicating. These objects which will be “de” may have something todo with the specific historical experience, or connect with the new era context, or derivefrom the discipline itself. In a sense, they forbid us from thinking the Modern ChineseLiterature and Culture deeply and thoroughly. Therefore, they must need to be constantlyreviewed.I used the concept "de-Cold War" to reflect binary opposition in studies, and analysisthe relationship between literature and politics. We should admit the fact that no matterhow deeply the relationship has been discussed in the past overseas studies, the basic ideaof binary opposition is still make sense, which overlooked adopting a new outsideparameter to rethink the linear relationship. Fortunately, this understanding begins to standout recently. I explored two kind of feminism, one as social text and the other as criticalpositions, and point out the challenges which are bought out by them, especially therewriting of the entire social and cultural interpretation. The discussion of “Decolonization” pays attention to the issues of colonial history andthe legacy of colonialism. I quote Rey Chow, Shu-mei Shih and Jing Tsu as three examples,and argue how did they redefine the concept of semi-colonial, or gained insights by usingthe post-colonial theories, even achieved the modernity through rethinking the experienceof be-colonized. Their studies enunciate the sense of hierarchy is buried under thediscourse of colonialism. They not only analyze of the huge harm of it, but also point out itcan be reversed.The part of “de-Empire” focuses on how to configure a new identity effectively in thecontext of cross-cultural communication, especially the globalization. Through the analysis,we will see the researchers obtain their own independent position, and propose their piecesof advice from three different time orientations, the past, the present and the future. Someof them explore the formation of Empire by returning to the history; some of them exertthemselves on figuring out the method to resist imperialism by facing the reality; the elseseek a cultural space to get over imperialism through designing a possible approach.By going back to the literature history, I try to investigate the phenomenon orconcepts which are regarded as a matter of course. I name it “de-paradigm”. I articulate theideas, including Lu Xun, May-Fourth, Realism, after the process of canonization alreadyhave the character of exclusion and self-purification, Which needs to be reviewedhistorically or modified through the way of introducing an external parameter.In the conclusion, I reflex the common problems of these four different aspects totally.In my opinion, there are three harmful research patterns must be alerted. One is a profitableknowledge production; one is the imperialism aesthetics whose core doctrine isuniversalism; and the last one is academic exploitation whose feature is taking a part forthe whole and recycling the part until it been bled white.更多还原