后现代主义与反阐释理论

【作者】 孙燕；

【导师】 王纪人；

【作者基本信息】 上海师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 论文由学术史、导论和六个章节构成。学术史主要回顾了国内外关于反阐释理论的研究状况及尚存在的问题，并指出论文的创新之处和理论意义。导论部分是对论题的总体论证和概说。首先对“阐释”与“反对阐释”的基本概念作了简要描述和界定，然后从历时的角度考察了阐释与反对阐释在现代主义和后现代主义时期的具体体现。论文认为“阐释”原本是《圣经》研究的一种方法，文艺复兴和宗教改革兴起以后，转变为人文科学研究的一般方法论，成为接触和理解人文科学各类文本的基本观念，至今仍在人文科学领域起着非同小可的支配作用。20世纪60年代之后，后现代主义对深度和意义的消解，使旨在追求文本意义的阐释学方法受到了挑战，于是“反对阐释”的口号便被提了出来。根据苏珊·桑塔格的观点，反对阐释就是主张冲破一切既有的文化观念，尤其要抛弃历史感的重负，削平深度以达到对生活的直接体验。对于桑塔格等人而言，反对阐释实际上只是一种姿态或一种策略，他们并非反对阐释本身，而是反对专制的一元论；他们倡导的是一种主体间性，即一种平等对话、多元共存在的和谐状态。在这种意义上，反对阐释内涵着一种后现代的生态意识或生存伦理。从现代主义到后现代主义文化范式的发展演变，实际上是审美学话语的构成规则和意义方式的转变，而阐释与反对阐释正是对这种变化的最佳描述。第一章是全文的概述。主要从20世纪后半叶西方的社会、政治、文化语境中对反阐释理论的缘起和发展进行了总体分析，指出其社会根源和思想根源。论文首先对反阐释理论产生的哲学背景作了辨析，认为现象学和存在主义哲学思潮在某种程度上对反阐释理论产生了一定的影响；再从60年代之后，后现代主义对现代性的批判与美国的“反文化”潮流两方面追寻反阐释理论产生与发展的内在逻辑；然后又概括介绍了阿兰·罗伯—格里耶、罗兰·巴尔特、苏珊·桑塔格、米歇尔·福科、雅克·德里达、吉尔·德勒兹、让·博德里亚等几位对反阐释理论发生过重要影响的后现代大家，指出“反对阐释”不只是一种文学批评主张，还是一种文化批判理论，它对传统的颠覆与反叛姿态使它不可避免地走向了“解构主义”的逻辑。第二、三、四章具体剖析了罗伯—格里耶、桑塔格与博德里亚的思想，通过对他们的比较研究，系统探讨了反阐释理论的美学诉求及文化意义。第二章“罗伯—格里耶：抛弃关于深度的古老神话”从格里耶对“巴尔扎克式”传统小说观念的质询与批判入手，总结出格里耶反对阐释的艺术主张：瓦解故事，消解人物，削平深度，解构意义；并以其小说《嫉妒》为例，对其所倡导的未来小说——一种反对阐释的表面小说——的主要文化特征作出了理论表述。第三章“苏珊·桑塔格：反对阐释与新感受力”主要从“唯美主义气质”、“艺术色情学”、“疾病的隐喻”三个方面论述桑塔格独特的先锋文艺思想和对传统文化的反叛精神，并指出其反对阐释的理论主张具有的文化内涵。第四章“博德里亚：意义的阙如”首先分析了博德里亚的后现代媒介理论与仿真、超现实、内爆理论，以揭示后现代“反对阐释”的时代特征；接着讨论了博德里亚关于电子媒介时代的艺术观念：由符号构建的“超真实”文本完全终结了主体性、终结了意义、终结了历史，因而也就终结了阐释。第五章“反对阐释的理论特征”在以上章节的基础上对反阐释理论作了进一步的分析和评议，指出其语言学转向和结构主义的理论背景。基于论者对文学的独特看法——文学虚构现实、文学是一种不及物的语言行为——而否定文学是意义的载体，从而反对阐释，认为应该把它理解为一种形式主义美学或诗学；同时，认为反阐释理论作为对阐释问题的思考与研究应该归并在阐释学的理论体系中讨论，即视其为阐释学发展的一个阶段——一种后现代阐释学。第六章“反对阐释之后：走向文本的社会学”是对反阐释理论作出的辨证思考和总结。认为反阐释理论的基本诉求是文本社会学，而20世纪现代社会学的形式转向和当代批判理论的文化转向两方面也预示着这样一种理论走向。更多还原

【Abstract】 The dissertation is composed of literature review and introduction and six chapters. In the literature review, the current research situation about the topic against interpretation home and abroad is reviewd, and the innovation and significance of the dissertation are put forward. The introduction generally argues for the topic, and summarizes the chief points. It briefly describes and defines the basic concepts of "interpretation" and "against-interpretation". Furthermore, it diachronically surveys the concrete embodiment of interpretation and against-interpretation during the period of modernism and post-modernism. The paper points out that "interpretation" is a method of study of " the Bible" in the original meaning. It changes into a general methodology studying the humanities after the start of the Renaissance and the Reformation, and it has already become a basic mode of thought that touches and understands all sorts of texts, even dominant one in the field of the humanities nowadays. Post-modernism being against the depths and content after 1960s, the notion of interpretation just for pursuing the original intention (of God or author) faces big challenges. Thereupon, the claim against interpretation is brought forward. According to Susan Sontag, Against-interpretation is to break away from all the existing cultural notions, especially to abandon the load of the sense of history and flatten the depths so that the life can be experienced directly. As far as Sontag and those who share ideas with her are concerned, against-interpretation is only a attitude or strategy in fact. They are against not interpretation itself but arbitrary monism. They advocate an intersubjectivity, namely a harmonious state of equal dialogue and numerous distinct ideas coexistence. In this sense, a post-modern ecological consciousness or subsisting ethic is connoted within the idea against interpretation. The evolution of cultural paradigm from modernism to post-modernism means in fact the change of composing rules and meaning mode of aesthetic discourse, and interpretation and against-interpretation are just the best description about this change.Chapter one is a summary of the dissertation. It comprehensively analyzes the origin and development of the theory against interpretation mainly from the western social, political, cultural context in the second half of the twentieth century, pointing out its roots of society and thoughts. The paper firstly examines the philosophical background. It holds that philosophical currents such as phenomenology and existentialism have an effect on this theory to some degree, and then traces the inner logic of origin and development of the theory from post-modernism and "anti-cultural" trend. Afterwards, it generalizes several important post-modern theorists such as Alain Robbe-Grillet, Roland Barthes, Susan Sontag, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, Jean Baudrillard and so on. The paper proposes that "against-interpretation" is not only a literary critical claim, but also a cultural theory. Its attitude that overthrows and rebells tradition makes it inevitably tend towards the logic of deconstruction.Chapter two, chapter three and chapter four analyze in detail of Robbe-Grillet, sontag and Baudrillard respectively, and systematicly discuss the aesthetics pursuit and the cultural significance of the theory against interpretation through comparing the thoughts of them. Chapter two, "Alain Robbe-Grillet: Giving up the Old Myth concerning Depth", questions and criticizes the traditional novel concept of Balzac in the first place, summing up his artistic opinions against interpretation: deconstructing narration, clearing up character; flattening depth, removing meaning. Then, taking "jealousness" for example, make a theoretical representation of major cultural features of surface novel—a future one advocated by him. Chapter three, "Susan Sontag: Against Interpretation and New Sensibility", specifically comments sontag’s particular avant-garde ideas and determination against traditional culture by explaining throughly three aspects of the temperament of aestheticism, artistic eroticism and metaphor of illness. Chapter four "Baudrillard: the Absence of Meaning", analyzes post-modern media theory and simulacrum, hyperreality, implosion of Baudrillard, so that the era characteristic of against-interpretation is revealed. Futhermore, the paper discusses his artistic opinions in the electronic media age: that is to say, hyperrealistic text made of signs ends subjectivity, meaning and history completely, so interpretation is also ended.;Chapter five "Theoretical Features of Against-interpretation" analyzes and comments furtherly the theory against interpretation based on above chapters. It points out its theoretical background of the linguistic turn and structuralism. Because advocates of the theory hold a particular perspective—literature recreates reality, literature is a linguistic action referring to nothing, they deny the concept that literature is carrier of meaning, and they are against interpretation. According to this understanding, the paper believes that the theory against interpretation should be regarded as a formalistic aesthetics or poetics. At the same time, it shoud be put in the system of Hermeneutics, say, looked upon as a stage of Hermeneutics—post-modern Hermeneutics.Chapter six, "after Against-interpretation: Approaching Textual Sociology", makes a logical consideration and conclusion. The paper holds that the basic pursuit of the theory against interpretation is textual sociology, and such a theory trend is predicated by twentieth century formalistic turn of modern sociology and cultural turn of contemporary critical theories.更多还原