伊格尔顿的解构思想研究

【作者】 李炜；

【导师】 姚文放；

【作者基本信息】 扬州大学 ， 文艺学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 伊格尔顿被誉为西方著名的马克思主义文艺批评家、文化理论家,他对文学、美学等领域所做的贡献是不可估量的,但笔者认为,他更是一个具有深刻解构思想的时代斗士。在伊格尔顿的思想历程中一直贯穿着一条主脉——解构思想,从文学领域的文学本质、文学批评、文学理论到文化领域的文化概念、文化批评以及文化理论,在每一个层面中他都延续着解构——坚守——建构——再解构的思路。也许正是这种解构思想的支撑,才使得伊格尔顿理论充满了创新与生命力,也使得他永远站在时代的前沿参与各种对话。伊格尔顿的解构思想表现在一种全然开放式的姿态,突破传统的思维方式,消解权威、消解绝对;表现在对等级制度、二元对立的颠覆与超越;同时体现在他的平民意识、民主思想中。伊格尔顿的解构思想绝非只包含批判、破除的成分,他还具有较高层次的重构意识,另外对解构主义空洞性、虚伪性的解构则是伊格尔顿解构思想的升华。伊格尔顿虽然从没有明确地称自己是解构主义者,但是他的思想却处处体现了解构的实质,他的解构体现在具体的批评和实践中。本文的主干分为八章,分别讨论了伊格尔顿的解构思想是如何融化在具体理论和批评实践中的。第一章:文学的“本质”。伊格尔顿在《文学理论引论》这部著作中曾明确提出“文学没有本质”、“文学的本质不存在”,他分别从本体论和功能论两个角度消解了文学的本质。但是伊格尔顿对文学本质的解构,并不等于他完全远离文学,也不代表他要解除文学能指与所指之间稳定的关系,更不意味着他将文学理解成一种能指的自由嬉戏、一种形式的狂欢。伊格尔顿所解构的只是隐藏在这个概念下的本质主义和一元论,消解不是目的,紧接着他又给出了文学的另一种界定——文学的意识形态性。他认为,一方面文学文本生产过程中包含着复杂的意识形态关系,因此文学文本必然有意识形态性,另一方面文学文本也可能通过揭示、表达复杂的意识形态关系而富有了意识形态价值。因此这是一种更开放、更动态的界定,这也启发我们从不同角度、不同方位、不同层次来剖析文学。第二章:文学的形式。伊格尔顿的“内在形式观”解构了传统文学形式与内容的二元对立,对孰为第一性、孰为第二性的硬性规定作出了摒弃。这一解构的对象既包括内容压倒形式的庸俗社会学,又包括形式压倒内容的形式主义文论。事实上,内容与形式的关系总是相融相济的,正所谓“文质彬彬”、“文犹质也,质犹文也”。伊格尔顿的深刻性还在于,他一方面承认了文学形式的自律性,另一方面又向我们展示了文学形式是如何表达意识形态这一内容层面的,从文学形式出发来研究文学的社会意义,这种研究方法值得我们借鉴。例如国内学者的“形式社会学”、“形式美学”等等理论都很好地继承和延续了这一重要思想。第三章:从反映论、创作论走向生产论。文学反映论习惯从静止的文学文本出发,坚持以作者、作品为中心来考察文本与社会的关系,因此它的机械性、片面性、静观性是不言而喻的。而传统的创作论主要是强调创作主体在文学创作过程中的决定性地位,强调作家的个人才能在创作中的重要性和神秘性,因此它的唯心主义立场也是不科学的。生产论的提出则解构了这种静止性和神秘性。虽然文学生产论不是伊格尔顿的首创,但是伊格尔顿却在一系列的比较、评定和范畴的重新界定中赋予了这一思想以新的内容和更深刻的理解,尤其是他的六个范畴说更是揭示出了文学生产的过程性特征以及存在与意识、基础与上层建筑、主体与客体之间的普遍联系。随着社会主义商品经济的快速发展,文学作为一种产品、商品的性质越来越受到人们的关注,而伊格尔顿全新的文学生产论则给我们的研究提供了有价值的理论资源。第四章:纯文学批评。我们知道在整个西方哲学世界里有一种根深蒂固的中心、理念情结,这种传统的逻各斯中心主义也深深影响了文学批评领域。综观整个二十世纪的文学批评,它所遵循的恰恰就是这样一种追求文学中心、本体、本源的传统模式,也就是纯文学批评。各个批评流派各自追逐文学的永恒特征和普遍规律,可以说二十世纪就是文学划定边界寻求本体的世纪。伊格尔顿基于他的政治批评立场对这些纯文学批评流派实施了一项伟大的“解构工程”。正如他自己所说,纯文学批评就像一枚枚的钉子,很容易一钉子钉死,而我们的任务就是挖出这些所谓不变的、固定的钉子。纯文学批评的另一个特点就是形式主义,这一批评倾向割裂了作品与社会、作家、读者、历史的联系,把批评的焦点集中在文学的内部、形式中,这一模式导致了文学研究方法越来越单一、狭隘,因此也严重阻碍了文学批评的进程。解构纯文学批评,走向文学文化批评是伊格尔顿带给我们的新启示。文学文化批评是坚持以文学为基础,从文学出发,汲取了精神的、社会的、文化的等等批评方法于一身并最终指向文学的批评模式,精神分析法和女权主义则是这种方法的最初尝试。伊格尔顿所坚持的从文学批评走向文学文化批评的道路既实现了对纯文学批评的解构,又有了文化批评的建构。这是对“文学批评逻各斯”和“文学形式主义”扬弃之后的另一条出路,这种扬弃也使得批评本身走向多元化、综合化。第五章:纯文学理论。伊格尔顿对纯文学理论的解构首先依据逻辑推理,在他看来既然纯文学不存在、纯文学批评不存在,那么更高层次的文学理论也是无源之水、无根之木了。同时他还指出,任何理论的界定要么是根据它研究的特殊方法,要么是根据它探索的特殊对象,但对于文学理论来说,这两个层面都不具有唯一性和排它性。解构绝不等同于终结或消亡,伊格尔顿在解构的过程中又给了我们很多建构性的启示,他尝试以文学的方式来搭建文本与文化的桥梁,以文学的介入或对文学性的思考来考察文化领域,这些都是有意义的尝试。第六章:文化。文化是目前人文学科领域最复杂的概念之一,而伊格尔顿对文化的言说继续保持了他解构的思路,他以历史发展中标志性的文化界定为例,指出对文化进行客观的、完整的界定是不可能的。伊格尔顿解构的目的是希望我们能把目光投向更多的有意义的领域,例如探讨文化的特征、文化的作用、为什么要研究文化、跨文化等等问题,也许这些课题更有实际的意义。对“泛文化主义”的解构则体现了伊格尔顿对现实的关怀,也表现了他政治批评的立场。伊格尔顿指出泛文化主义其实是后现代主义浪潮影响下文化激进主义的表现,也是政治退缩的表现,同时文化的泛滥也使得文化自身在某种程度上成为政治的帮凶和避难所,因此我们要警惕文化的阴谋,要勇敢地面对实际存在的政治问题。对共同文化的倡导则表达了伊格尔顿强烈的平民、民主意识。共同文化既体现了文化与社会的关系,也暗含了人与人之间的关系。对于社会主义而言,提倡共同文化就是要提倡全民共同参与、丰富、创造文化,同时也强调全民共同享有文化,这是文化整体进步的表现,也是政治民主的表现。第七章:后现代主义文化。伊格尔顿作为成长和生活在后现代社会的理论家,他的观点自然无法脱离后现代的问题。他试图通过分析后现代主义文化中存在的诸种矛盾性来铲除后现代主义文化存在的根基,号召人们从后现代主义的梦境中清醒过来,关注紧迫的现实问题。伊格尔顿通过解构一组组的悖论——反权威的权威性、零碎的主体、非历史主义的历史性、激进中的保守来解构后现代主义的矛盾性。由于后现代主义的中坚力量就是解构主义,因此对后现代主义矛盾性的解构从实质上来说也就是对解构主义的解构,这样一种解构则体现了伊格尔顿思想的深刻性。第八章:大理论。文学理论、文化理论的黄金时期、鼎盛时期似乎已经过去,而伊格尔顿《理论之后》这部著作又看似在谈理论之后的事情。我们是否真的不需要理论?理论在我们这个时代是否已经丧失了魅力?答案是否定的。伊格尔顿只是在提醒我们,目前的理论存在着脱离实际、空洞化的倾向,因此他解构的其实是理论高度精英化、学院化的趋势。事实上,只要人类还需要思考,理论就不会消逝,理论在当前的语境中正尝试着以不同的方式延续生命,我们也应该以积极的态度来面对理论发展中的曲折,这就是伊格尔顿带给我们的启示。更多还原

【Abstract】 Eagleton is honored as a well-known Marxian aesthetician and a cultural theorist in the western country and his contributions to the fields of literature and aesthetics are very great. The author, however, holds the view that Eagleton is a warrior with the profound thought of deconstruction, which is a main stem in the course of his thoughts. His thinking of deconstruction --- persevering --- construction --- re-deconstruction is reflected in every aspect, from the literary essence, literary criticism and literary theory in literary field to the cultural conception, cultural criticism and cultural theory in cultural field. With the sustainment of this thought of deconstruction, Eagleton’s theory is full of innovation and vitality and he is always ahead of time. First, Eagleton’s thought of deconstruction eliminates authority and absoluteness in a fully open stance and breaks the traditional thinking mode. Second, his thought is embodied in the subversion and surmounting to the hierarchical system and dual opposition, and in his sense of common people and democratic ideas as well. Certainly, his deconstruction does not only include criticism and elimination, it has the sense of re-construction in a higher level. Eagleton’s deconstruction to the empty and hypocrisy of deconstructivism is the sublimation of his thought. Although he never clearly declares himself to be a deconstructivist, his thought reflects the essence of deconstruction and his deconstruction is embodied in the specific criticism and practice. The body of this paper is divided into 8 chapters, discussing how Eagleton’s thought of deconstruction is integrated into the specific theory and critical practice.Chapter one:“Essence”of LiteratureIn Literary Theory, Eagleton clearly puts forward“literature does not have essence”,“the essence of literature does not exit”. He eliminates the essence of literature from the aspects of ontology and functionalism. But, Eagleton’s deconstruction to the essence of literature is not equal to his separation from“literature”, does not represent his deconstruction of the stable relationship between signifier and signified in literature and does not mean that he comprehends literature as a frolic of signifier and a formal revelry. What Eagleton deconstructs is the essentialism and monism. The elimination is not the purpose, then, he gives another literary definition --- literary ideology. In his opinion, the production of the literary text includes a complicated ideological relationship, and then, this literary text is also full of ideology. What’s more, he still thinks that the literary text is endowed with ideological value through revealing this complicated ideological relationship. So, this definition is more open and more dynamic and it enlightens us to analyze literature from different aspects, different directions and different levels.Chapter two: The Form of LiteratureEagleton’s“View of Intrinsic Form”deconstructs the dual opposition between the form and the function in traditional literature and abandons the rigid rules about which is the first nature and which is the second. This object of deconstruction includes vulgar sociology and formalism literary theory. Actually, the function and the form always integrate into each other. The profundity of Eagleton’s thought lies in that he admits the self-discipline of literary form and he also shows us how literary form represents the ideology. We should learn from this method. For example, many domestic scholars’theories like“Formal Sociology”and“Formal Aesthetics”inherit and continue his thought very well.Chapter three: From Theory of Reflection and Creationism to Theory of ProductionThe literary theory of reflection is used to studying the static text and examining the relationship between text and society with the focus of the author and the works, therefore, it is obviously mechanical, unilateral and static. While, the traditional creationism emphasizes the decisive role the creation subject plays in the course of literary creation and the importance and mystique of the writer’s own talent. As a result, its idealistic position is not scientific. The bringing up of the theory of production deconstructs this kind of immobility and mystique. Although literary theory of production is not originated by Eagleton, he offers new content and more profound comprehension to this thought in comparison, estimation and re-definition of category. His“Six Categories”reveals the dynamic procedural features of the literary production and the universal relations between existence and consciousness, base and superstructure, subject and object. With the rapid development of socialism commodity economy, the literature is getting more and more attentions as a product and commodity nature, and then, Eagleton’s new literary theory of production offers valuable theory resource to our research. Chapter four: Pure Literary Criticism.In the western philosophical world, there is a deep-rooted focus and idea, the traditional logocentrism, which has a great influence on the field of literary criticism. When surveying the literary criticism in the 20th century, we find that it follows the traditional model of pursuing the literary center, noumenon and source. This is pure literary criticism. Each critical school chases the eternal characteristic and universal law of literature as the golden rule. We can say that the 20th century is the century delimiting the boundary and pursuing the noumenon. In accordance with his position of political criticism, Eagleton implements a great“project of deconstruction”to these schools of pure literary criticism. Just like what he says, the pure literary criticism is like a nail, it is easy to nail tight, while our task is to dig out these so-called invariable and fixed nails. Another characteristic of pure literary criticism is formalism, which separates works from the society, the writers, the readers and the history. The focus of this kind of criticism is on the form of the literature. This model makes the research methods of literature sole and narrow and even seriously blocks the development of literary criticism. What Eagleton enlightens us is to deconstruct the pure literary criticism and turn to literary cultural criticism, which derives mental, social and cultural methods of criticism on the basis of literature and finally directs to the critical model of literature. Psychological analysis and Feminism are the first attempt of this method. Eagleton’s way, from literary criticism to literary cultural criticism, realizes the deconstruction to the pure literary criticism and the construction of cultural criticism. This is another opportunity after sublating literary criticism logos and literary formalism. This sublating also makes criticism multiplicity and synthesis.Chapter five: Pure Literary Theory.Eagleton deconstructs the pure literary theory according to the logic deduction. In his opinion, the pure literature does not exist, either does pure literary criticism. Then, the literary theory in the higher level is rootless. He also points out that the definition of any theory is in accordance with its special research method or its special object. When regarding to literary theory, however, these two levels do not have uniqueness and exclusiveness. The deconstruction to pure literary theory does not mean its end. In the course of deconstruction, Eagleton gives us a lot of constructive enlightenment. He tries to build the bridge between text and culture in the way of literature and inspect the field of culture with the involvement of literature or ponder of literature. All these attempts are of significance.Chapter six: Culture.Culture is one of the most complicated conceptions in the field of humanities at present, while Eagleton’s explanation of culture keeps his thinking of deconstruction. He takes an example of the definition of symbolic culture in the development of history and points out that it is impossible to define culture objectively and completely. The purpose of Eagleton’s deconstruction is to tell us to study some meaningful fields, for instance, to explore the questions like the characteristics of culture, the functions of culture, why study culture and cross-culture, and etc. Maybe these topics are of more practical significance. The deconstruction to Pan-Culturalism reflects Eagleton’s care about the reality and his position of political criticism. He points out that pan-culturalism is actually the representation of the political shrinkage and cultural radicalism influenced by postmodernism. The flooding of culture also makes the culture become the political accomplice and refuge to some extent. So, we should be on guard against the cultural scheme and bravely face with the actual political problems. The initiation of common culture expresses Eagleton’s sense of common people and democracy. The common culture not only represents the relationship between culture and society, but also implicates the relationship between people. Regarding to socialism, to initiate common culture is to initiate all the people into the richness and creation of culture and emphasize that all the people enjoy the culture together. This is the representation of the progress of culture and the democracy of politics.Chapter seven: Culture of Postmodernism.As a theorist born and lived in the postmodern society, Eagleton’s opinions could not be separated from the postmodern problems. He tries his best to eliminate the foundation of postmodernism through analyzing the various contradictions existing in the culture of postmodernism. He would like to ask people to wake up from the dream of postmodernism and concern with the urgent realistic problems. Eagleton deconstructs the contradictions of postmodernism by deconstructing groups of paradoxes like authority of counter-authority, fragmentary subject, historicity of non-historicism and tradition of radicalism. As the main power of postmodernism is deconstructivism, the deconstruction to the contradictions of postmodernism is the deconstruction to deconstructivism from the essence. This kind of deconstruction represents the profundity of Eagleton’s thought.Chapter eight: Theory.It seems that the gold time and prosperous time of literary theory and cultural theory has passed, however, Eagleton’s After Theory seems to discuss the matters after theory. Do we really not need theory? Does the theory lose its charm in our time? The answer is no. Eagleton just reminds us that the present theory has a tendency of empty and separating from the fact. What he actually deconstructs is the tendency of highly elite and institutionalization of theory. Actually, as long as it is necessary for human beings to think, the theory would not vanish. The theory is continuing its vitality in different ways in the present context. We should face with the ups and downs in the development of theory with positive attitude. This is what Eagleton enlightens us.更多还原