【作者】 袁英；

【导师】 胡亚敏；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 比较文学与世界文学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 本文以20世纪西方话语理论为研究对象,旨在梳理和探讨话语理论的知识谱系及其经由跨语际旅行来到中国后的流变与重构历程,以期为中国当代文学批评提供观照和反思。本文力求实现三个研究目标：一是全面考察20世纪西方话语理论的发展演变历程；二是辨析话语理论在中国文学研究和批评中的流变与重构；三是探讨话语理论对中国当代文学批评的启示和借鉴意义。从知识谱系学的研究视角入手,本文注重对作为知识体系的话语理论的产生和建构的动态历史的描述,并在强调话语理论的多元性和异质性的同时也力图勾勒出贯穿在话语理论发展史中的主要线索和内在理路。除绪论和结语外,全文由五个部分组成。第一章围绕从语言到话语的转向以及话语与意识形态理论两个中心论题展开论述。索绪尔关于语言／言语的划分为话语理论的萌生奠定了理论基础。在结构主义和后结构主义的理论语境下,结构主义人类学家列维—斯特劳斯和语言学家本维尼斯特在从语言转向话语的早期理论规划中发挥了重要的作用。列维—斯特劳斯在神话研究中发现了超越语言和言语的第三层面即话语层面,并对作为话语的神话的构成单位进行分析,“话语语言学”的构想在他这里初露端倪。本维尼斯特看到了结构语言学存在的局限,通过关于话语世界的描述、对历史陈述和话语的区分以及对话语主体性问题的探讨策动了从语言到话语的转向。在对话语与意识形态理论的探讨中,阿尔都塞和佩肖的话语和意识形态理论对法国话语分析学派产生了深远的影响。阿尔都塞关于意识形态的建构与性质、意识形态与主体问题以及有关意识形态话语的讨论为话语理论的发展提供了重要的理论框架和思考线索。佩肖则在吸收阿尔都塞意识形态理论的基础之上致力于建立新的话语和意识形态理论。第二章以福柯的话语理论为重点考察对象,试图把握和理解福柯视野中的话语思想的整体面貌。首先,福柯关注的重心从语言转向话语,陈述和话语形成是其话语理论的核心概念。话语的特性具体表现为话语事件、话语实践和话语的实证性。话语的生产受到排斥程序、内部控制原则和针对说话主体的控制原则的限制。其次,话语、权力与知识相互交织、相互作用,形成动态复杂的关系网络。通过对话语与权力的互动、权力/知识的共生体以及话语与知识的关联这三个层面的分析,福柯对话语问题的重新思考和阐述得以清晰地呈现。另外,福柯从三个方面解释了意识形态概念难以运用的原因：意识形态与真理之间的对立；意识形态必然和主体相关涉；意识形态与经济基础的关系,因此福柯摒弃了意识形态概念。最后,福柯认为从作者在话语中的一般功能出发,作者仍然是个“悬而未决的问题”,并进而在话语领域内对“作者—功能”的四个特征做出总结。第三章探讨了女性主义与后殖民研究对福柯话语理论的吸收、挪用和改造。女性主义对于福柯话语理论的运用与其独特的女性视角和政治诉求紧密相连,在挪用“话语”概念的同时也对其加以改造。女性主义学者对权力／知识问题的关注与她们在当下知识体系中的现实处境密切相关,福柯的权力／知识观促使女性主义学者摆脱的旧的知识生产模式,并对父权制中许多“知识真理”提出质疑。女性主义学者在评价福柯的权力/抵抗观时往往表现出两种截然不同的态度,有的对其提出质疑和批评,另一些学者则充分肯定福柯的权力/抵抗观对女性主义的积极影响,并在此基础之上对有效的抵抗策略或途径作出了有益的探讨。后殖民研究同样从福柯的话语理论中获益良多,萨义德通过运用福柯的话语概念以及权力／知识理论对东方主义批评进行了重新定位,赋予其东方学研究不同于此前殖民主义批评的全新视角和批判力度。同时,他与福柯之间也在诸多方面存在矛盾、分歧和偏离。针对关于萨义德的东方学研究的争议和批判,罗伯特·扬认为有必要重新考察萨义德阐释、运用话语概念的方法,他提出应该回到福柯对话语概念的源初阐释,并在此基础上将“殖民话语”重新理论化。第四章梳理了话语理论在中国的接受和流变。话语理论在中国文学研究和批评领域中的传播始于学界对结构主义与后结构主义思潮的翻译与评介。20世纪80年代对福柯话语理论的研究大多以译介和评述的形式呈现,且并未引起学界的广泛关注。90年代以后,对话语理论的研究主要体现在三个方面：关于重新语境化后"discourse"术语翻译问题的讨论；对作为关键词的“话语”概念的厘清和辨析；话语范式在中国文学研究和批评中的运用。在对话语理论的接受过程中,异域和本土、彼时与当下的语境和时空的错位使学界在取得了一些批评实绩的同时也表现出若干问题。首先,在中国文化现实的影响下,学界对话语理论的吸纳和接受视野相对单一化和同质化；其次,话语理论的引入更新了中国文学研究和批评观念,学界从话语视角切入对文学的本质属性做出重新界定,话语分析为中国文学理论和批评的发展建设提供了方法论的启示；第三,学界展开对话语理论本土化的反思,发掘和清理中国传统文论中的话语思想,并提出建构中国话语研究范式的设想,以期实现话语研究的多元对话。第五章阐发了话语理论之于中国当代文学批评的借鉴和反思意义。本文认为话语理论提供了一种新的入思路径。在话语理论的观照下,文学批评被视为一种生产性的话语实践,实践性和生产性成为批评话语的内在品格,文学批评是在一定的社会、历史和文化语境中被建构起来的。探讨中国当代文学批评,既要考察“文学批评”概念在中国的生成,又要辨析文学批评的当代形态。面对20世纪90年代以来关于文学批评的争议和诘责,本文运用话语分析的方法重新审视了中国当代文学批评场,探讨当代中国社会的整体文化语境、学术背景和文学观念、当代文学制度、批评话语的生产方式和批评主体的存在方式发生了的变化,和这些变化如何影响、规约甚至决定了当代文学批评的现实生态。在对当代文学批评生态的审理和探究的基础上,本文针对当代文学批评存在的问题,从批评家的文化认同和话语立场、批评家的知识更新和理论创新以及文学批评中的价值判断与责任伦理等方面对全球化时代批评主体的话语策略作了新的探讨和反思。此外,批评话语的实践性使其总是向现实问题敞开,当代文学批评家应该始终保持对批评对象的一种“距离观照”,坚持对文学和文化的批判意识和反思精神,从而走上真正的“批评之路”。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation attempts to make an overall study of the genealogy of discourse theory in the West in the20th century and its reception and reconstruction in China in the hope of providing new perspectives and insightful reflections on contemporary Chinese literary criticism. This dissertation intends to achieve three goals:firstly, it examines the course of the development of discourse theory; secondly, it focuses on the analysis of the reception and reconstruction of discourse theory in contemporary Chinese literary studies and criticism; thirdly, it explores the inspirations and revelations of discourse theory on contemporary Chinese literary criticism.Adopting the genealogical research method, the dissertation elaborates on the dynamic history of the emergence and construction of discourse theory as a system of knowledge, through which the diversity and heterogeneity of discourse theory will be highlighted and the main threads and inner connections of its history of development will be revealed.The dissertation is composed of five parts in addition to introduction and conclusion:Chapter Ⅰ concentrates on the turn to discourse from language and theory of discourse and ideology. Saussure’s langue-parole distinction lays a theoretical foundation for the emergence of discourse theory. In the theoretical context of structuralism and post-structuralism, structural anthropologist Levi-Strauss and linguist Beveniste play important roles in the theoretical programme of turning from language to discourse. Levi-Strauss discovers the third level of language beyond langue and parole, that is, the level of discourse, and analyzes structurally the constitutive units of myths as discourses, which makes him precursor of the hypothesis of "the linguistics of discourse". Having realized the limitations of structural linguistics, Beveniste explores the discursive world, the distinction between histoire and discourse and subjectivity of discourse, which gives an impetus to the turn to discourse from language. Althusser and Pecheux’s theory of discourse and ideology exerts profound influence on the French Discourse Analysis. Althusser’s exploration on construction and nature of ideology, the relation between ideology and subject and ideological discourse provides significant theoretical framework and insights for the development of discourse theory. Based on Althusser’s theory of ideology, Pecheux endeavors to construct a new theory of discourse and ideology.Chapter Ⅱ makes a thorough analysis of Foucault’s discourse theory as a whole. The first point to note is the shift of attention in Foucault from language to discourse, and statement and discursive formation are two key concepts in his discourse theory. Discourse is characterized by discursive event, discursive practice and discursive positivity, and the production of discourse is constrained by procedures of exclusion, inner procedures and rarefaction of the speaking subjects. Furthermore, discourse interacts and interweaves with power and knowledge, forming a dynamic and complex network of relations. Only through in-depth examination of this network can Foucault’s reconsideration and reinterpretation of discourse be made clear. Another point worth mentioning is Foucault’s illustration of the concept of ideology. He believes that ideology is difficult to use because of three reasons: the opposition between ideology and truth, the connection of ideology with subject and relation between ideology and economic base, which leads to his rejection of the concept of ideology. Finally, Foucault argues that author is till a question to be resolved, and he further sums up the four characteristics of "author-function" in the field of discourse.Chapter III investigates the ways in which Foucault’s discourse theory is drawn, used and modified by feminist and post-colonial theorists. Feminist theorists have tried to make Foucault’s discourse theory work to serve their unique female perspective and political ends. Feminist theoriststs’ concern with the issue of power-knowledge is closely related to their current situation in system of knowledge, so they strive to get rid of the traditional mode of production of knowledge and question the truth of knowledge in patriarchy under the illuminations of Foucault’s views on power/knowledge. Their opinions are divided on Foucault’s power/resistance, among which some criticize Foucault’s views, while others recognize the positive influence of Foucault’s views on feminism, and discuss the effective resistant strategies feminists may adopt. Post-colonial studies also draw heavily on Foucault’s discourse theory. Foucault’s theory of discourse and power/knowledge provide fresh perspective and in-depth criticism for Said’s study of orientalism, on the other hand, contradictions and dissonances also exist between Said and Foucault. Young believes that it is of great necessity to re-examine the way Said makes use of and interprets discourse theory, and he proposes re-theorizing "colonial discourse" through returning to Foucault’s mode of discourse.Chapter IV examines the reception and reconstruction of discourse theory in China. The dissemination of discourse theory in Chinese literary studies and criticism begins with the translation and introduction of structuralism and post-structuralism to China. In1980s, studies on Foucault’s discourse theory are mainly in the form of translation and reviews, which produce little impact on academic circles. Since1990s, scholars are mainly concerned with the discussions of discourse theory from three aspects:the issue of term translation of "discourse" after recontextualization, clarification of "discourse" as a key concept and application of discourse paradigm in Chinese literary studies and criticism. During the course of reception, discourse theory has been put to use, domesticated and reconstructed because of the displacement of contexts, time and space. Foucault’s discourse theory has been reduced to the theory of discourse/power under the influence of Chinese cultural context, which embodies the limited perspective of reception. Meanwhile, scholars try to redefine literature from the angle of discourse theory, and discourse analysis provides the guidance of methodology for the development of Chinese literary theory and criticism as well. Domestication of discourse theory in China is also manifested in the exploration and reinterpretation of traditional Chinese literary theory from the perspective of discourse analysis, and reconstruction of Chinese discourse studies paradigm.Chapter V explores the illuminations and revelations of discourse theory on contemporary Chinese literary criticism. Literary criticism can be regarded as a productive discursive practice from the perspective of discourse theory. As discursive practice, literary criticism is actually constructed in a certain social, historical and cultural context. While reflecting on contemporary Chinese literary criticism, we should first of all examine how the concept "literary criticism" was introduced into China, and then analyze its contemporary characteristics. Besides, the author adopts the method of discourse analysis to survey the discursive field of contemporary Chinese literary criticism, and discusses the way overall cultural context, academic background and literary conception, literary institutions, mode of production of critical discourse, mode of existence of critical subject have changed, and how these changes influence, constrain and even decide the current situation of contemporary Chinese literary criticism. Based on the preceding discussions, the dissertation further explores the discursive strategies critics may take in reaction to globalization from three aspects: critics’ cultural identity and discursive stand, the issue of knowledge renewal and theoretical innovation, and the problem of value judgment and ethic responsibility in literary criticism. Contemporary critics should maintain a distance from their object of criticism, and insist on critical awareness and reflective spirit, only in this way can they be well on the way to "the critical path".更多还原