【作者】 张德明；

【导师】 曹顺庆；

【作者基本信息】 四川大学 ， 比较文学与世界文学， 2004， 博士

【摘要】 中国文学的现代化是近现代社会变革和文化转型的产物，也交织着社会文化转换中的种种问题、种种矛盾与若干困惑。近现代以来，在中西文明的激烈交锋和碰撞中，由于中西文化和文学之间所存在的异质性特征，中国文学的现代化一开始就面临着两种不同的选择：第一，西方文学理念的中国移植；第二，中国本土经验的现代转换。这两种不同的选择也铸就了中国现代文学史中的两种文学理解方式和表达方式，两种不同的文学选择为中国现代文学书写了不同的风采与绚丽，都取得了相当丰硕的成果，理应受到我们同样的重视。 概而言之，“五四”新文化派基本属于第一种类型。“五四”白话文运动以来，新文化派高举“打倒孔家店”、“重估一切价值”的大旗，秉行“拿来”主义的文学主张，大量译介西方文学，积极汲收外域的文学养分，创作出了不少脍炙人口的名篇佳什。这一派文学理论和文学实践中呈现了异常明显的现代性特征，而且顺应着近现代中国新文化想像与建构的思维路向，因此被文学史家作了大量的辑录、书写与铺陈。 《学衡》派、《甲寅》派与“鸳鸯蝴蝶派”大致属于第二种类型。他们在文学理论的阐释和文学创作的具体实践中，主张中国文学的发展不应该以遗弃传统文学的丰富成果为代价，而应该从传统出发，中西兼采，创建属于中国自己的文学世界。在表现形式上，这一群人也在许多方面体现出与中国文化和文学传统的亲缘性特征，如《学衡》派、《甲寅》派的文言表述方式，“鸳鸯蝴蝶派”迎合大众口味的通俗化写作策略和章回体文学形式，等等。此外，中国现代的旧体诗词在形式上也直接沿用了传统的文学表现手段，也从诸多方面显示了与传统的密切关联。这一派知识分子的理论与实践中，显现的不仅不是鲜明的现代性特征，而且许多还是与现代性相左的内容，可以说是反现代性的。由于它们在某种程度上与近现代中国新文化想像与建构的思维路向相违逆，与主流话语不相谐和，因此成为文学史长期漠视甚或遗忘的对象。 在相当长的时间内，两种不同的文学选择有着两种截然不同的存在命运。选择亲和西方文学的五四新文化派一直是文学史的宠儿，可以毫不夸张地说，现存所有现代文学史的基本构架都是以它们为骨骼而搭建的。与此同时，选择亲近传统的一派则一直无法从历史的幕后走向前台。本来他们曾经在历史的舞台上演过正角，曾作为中国文学发展中一种独特的声音而留存在岁月的唱片里，但在当代学者那里，他们不再被正视，很长时间不入文学史家的法眼，都被当作现代文学的逆流而处置。 “重写文学史”!这句由上海学者在八十年代末期郑重提出的口号，是一声惊雷般的怒吼，闪烁着理论的睿智和思想的光辉。不过多年以来，重写文学史一直思考的是如何重写新文学史，如何将以往粘附在新文学本体上的政治尘埃擦拭干净，而不是思考怎样重写现代文学的全貌，恢复现代文学的本来面目。 “重写文学史”的理论探讨最大的收获是改变了文学史从前的一统格局和教科书面孔，促进了文学史书写的多元化，但并没有将现代文学中与传统极为亲近、有着反现代倾向的这一派知识分子的理论与实践加以正确的考量和估价，己经 “重写”出的文学史依然维护着旧有的新文化本位观。 对文学史的彻底反思和评估出现在二十世纪末期，随着全球化时代的到来和多元文化格局的形成，一些学者从促进中国文化和文学在新世纪健康发展的理念出发，对二十世纪中国的文化和文学发展状况作了深入细致的思考、清理与盘算，从而发出了大胆的疾呼，甚至发出了带有明显偏激情绪的声音。如，有学者认为二十世纪中国文化己经“失家”，走上了背井离乡的不归之路:有学者认为中国文学理论在二十世纪已经丧失了自己的声音，陷入了“失语”的沼泽，失掉了理论原创力;还有学者质疑当下中国文学创作的现实合法性，认为五四白话文运动开辟的这个创作路子未必就走对了，离开了传统文学的给养，中国现代文学事实上有着“失言”的趋向。从现存文学史的书写文本来看，这些“失家”“失语”“失言”的论调无疑是正确的;但是换个角度，当我们充分认识到旧体诗词、鸳蝴派小说和“学衡”派文学理论的重要价值时，这些论调又显出了偏颇的一面。也许任何理论都是这样，只有在片面的强调中，深刻的光芒才能向四外发散开来。不过，这种“失家”“失语”“失言”的言论倒是在提醒我们:要想真正做到重写文学史，我们没有理由忽视现代文学中那些与传统更接近、与现代性相渺远的事实，或许在那里潜藏着更应该为中国文学现代化不应遗忘、值得珍视的宝贵东西。 中国的现代化是西方文化强烈冲击下生成的，从某种程度上说，现代化就是西方化。不过，中国文学的现代性是我们对中国文学现代化过程中出现的各种情状的定性分析和估定，它既要参考西方现代性范畴的客观规定性，还要考虑中国文学发展的具体实际。因此，我相当赞同汪晖关于中国现代性的研究应该是一种“文化间性”的考察这一理论主张，也就是说，在重审中国文学现代性时，我们必须认识到，中国“现代性”的发生过程中充满着文化自主性的因素。在论文，我?更多还原

【Abstract】 The modernization of Chinese Literature is the outcome of social change and cultural transformation in modern society, combining with problems, contradictions and perplexties in this transformation. In modern China, in the conflicts and collision between Western and Chinese civilization, Chinese literature is faced with two different options from very beginning owe to different characteristics of Chinese and West?rn literature and culture. On one hand, the transplant of Western literary idea. On the other hand, the modern transformation of Chinese native experiences. These two options form two different modes of understanding and expression in modern Chinese literary history, and they both have achieved great success. As a result, we should devote same attention to these two different trends.In sum, the May Fourth New Culture School belongs to the first option and Xueheng School Jiayin School and " Yuanyanghudie School "belong to the second one. The former creates large number of works.Holding the banner of the "down with the Confucian shop" and the "revaluation of everything", adopting the doctrine of "take in", the first school translates a lot of western culture and creates a large number of literary masterpieces. The works and literary theories of this school not only embodies the distinct spirit of "modernity", but also conform to the mainstream to construct modern Chinese culture. The latter school, on the contrary, holds that Chinese literature should not abandon the traditional cultural heritage ofancient China. Consequently, Chinese literature should create native Chinese culture based on her native culture, and drawing on the essence of Western culture and Chinese culture as well. The literary thoery and practice of this school do not demonstrate an obvious characteristics of modernity. To some extent, they are anti-modernity. For this, the latter school has been ignored by literary history for a long time. For a long time, these two literary orientations have different fate. The "May 4 New Culture School?" which inclines to Western literature is always the favarite of literary history while the latter school which inclines to traditional Chinese culture is ignored by literary historian."Rewriting literary history" was a call raised by scholars in Shanghai in the late 1980s. However, this rewriting of literary history is always thinking about how to write the new literary history and how to erase the political dust tainting the new literary itself rather than how to rewrite the modern literature in a all-round way so as to reveal modern literature in its true colors.In the late 20th century, there occurred a thorough reexamination and revaluation of literary history with the advent of the era of globalization. Under the circumstances, some scholars ponder over the problem of the development of Chinese literature and culture. Some scholars even hold an extreme view that Chinese literary theory has lost its own sound in the 20th century. These may sound biased to some extent. However, the articulations of "homeless" and "aphasia" seem to remind us that we should not neglect the literary creations which are more close to tradition and far from modernity in modern literature if we want to rewrite literary history.China’s modernity is accompanied by the impact of Western culture. To some extent, we may say that modernity is "westernization". However, when we value and comment on the modernity of literature, we should not only refer to the stipulation of the modernity with Western concept, but also think about the reality of the development of Chinese literature. Therefore, I agree on Wang Hui’s idea that the research on China’s modernity should be based on "interculture"? That isto say, when we reflect on the modernity of Chinese literature, we must realize that in the course of China’s modernity, there is filled with the factor of initiation of culture?. In the dissertation, the author holds that the school which attaches to the tradition is anti-modernity. This is the idea of Western modernity. The author更多还原