【作者】 王大桥；

【导师】 方克强；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 对文学研究的人类学范型在中国语境中的生长情况进行反省自察是本论题目的所在,贯穿这一考察和批判的是文学研究人类学视野中的方法论问题。全文除导论和结语外,共由六章组成。第一章和第二章的主要内容是对20世纪前期神话和歌谣研究中人类学视野的发生进行考察。神话是文学与人类学研究的共同领域,是文学人类学研究的首要发生地。神话的文学之维之所以能够敞开的主要原因在于人类学研究方法的渗透。20世纪前期的学人在神话研究中把比较范型具体化为各自不同的研究方法,人类学视野中神话研究的经验和方法参与到文学观念的建构之中。第一章选择了周作人、鲁迅、茅盾及闻一多诸位学人作为考察对象,讨论他们各自神话研究的人类学视野及其方法。第二章以20世纪早期北大的“歌谣运动”为考察中心,讨论歌谣研究中人类学视野及其对文学研究的影响。歌谣研究者把主要来自人类学领域中的比较研究法介绍到中国来,并与中国传统的国学研究方法向结合,创制了具有中国本土特色的文学比较范型。在比较研究的视野中,母题追索、历史演进法等具体研究方法的运用对歌谣与传说的研究具有范导意义。神话和歌谣研究中的“比较”范型在追寻相似点的进程中,清沈掉的恰恰是审美性得以生成的特殊经验。在材料意义上寻求对理论假设作出证明的致思路径在新时期文学人类学的研究中同样得以延续。第三章到第六章对新时期文学研究中人类学视野进行批评性考察。围绕四个问题展开论述:西方视域中文学人类学的理论蕴涵及新时期文学人类学的发生语境;新时期文学人类学的理论建构及其问题;原型批评实践与理论的中国化改造及其审美维度的遮蔽;多重证据法的研究实践及其文本化倾向。新时期文学人类学的理论建构建立在文学与人类学两个学科关于“人”的共同理解上,但没有对人类生存经验的特殊性给予特别关注。这种缺失在原型批评和多重证据法的研究实践以及方法论建构中同样得以显明:原型批评实践中寻找原型活动成为批评的主要工作,文学意象与文化意象的相互混淆以及对原型作人类学意义上的还原成为原型批评的理论阈限,实践和理论的阈限遮蔽了文学研究中的审美维度;而多重证据法立足于材料,在比较的视野中进行“以西援中”式的学术改造,中西材料的相互文本化成为其问题所在。在文学人类学实践和理论建构中,如何关注个体化经验,使得审美维度得以彰显就成为文学人类学深入发展的关键。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis attempts to reflect on the development of the anthropological paradigm in literature studies in Chinese context. It centers round the methodology of the anthropological perspective in literature studies.Besides introduction and conclusion, the whole thesis consists of six chapters.Chapter One and Chapter Two analyzes the anthropological perspective in the study of the myth and folk songs at the early stage of the 20th century. As the common field of literature studies and anthropological researches, myth is the starting point of Chinese literature anthropology studies. The reason why the literary study of myth develops lies in the application of the method of anthropology research. The comparative paradigms used by Chinese scholars in myth studies in the early 20th century develop into different research methods so that the experiences and methods of the myth studies in anthropological perspective contribute to the construction of literary ideas. Chapter One discusses methods in myth studies of such scholars as Zhou-Zuoren , Lu-Xun , Mao- Dun and Wen-Yiduo from the anthropological perspective. Chapter Two analyzes the anthropological perspective of folk songs studies and its influence on literature studies, centering on the campaign of folk songs in Peking University in the early 20th century. The researchers in the field of folk songs introduce the comparative methods of anthropology to China and combine them with Chinese traditional study methods of Guoxue. creating a comparative paradigm in literature studies with Chinese characteristic. In the vision of comparative study, the specific research methods. such as tracing the Motif of the stories and describing history evolution,.have set examples for the research method in folk songs and legends. The special experience forming the aesthetic nature is neglected when the similarity of the comparative paradigm is tracked down in the study of myths and folk songs. The method of proving the theoretical assumption in the material sense continues to be used in the literature anthropology in the new period.Chapter Three to Chapter Six attempts to study critically the anthropological perspective in the literature studies in the new period. It discusses the following four issues: the theoretical implication of literature anthropology in western context and the linguistic environment of literature anthropology in the new period, the theoretical construction and its problems of literature anthropology in the new period, the reconstruction of Archetypal criticism in China and the sheltering of its aesthetic dimension, the practice of the method of multiple evidence and its tendency without time and space. The theoretical construction of literature anthropology in the new period depends on the common understanding about mankind in the disciplines of literature and anthropology, but it does not give enough attention to the survival experiences of mankind. This lack of attention also exists in the practice of Archetypal criticism, the method of multiple evidences, and the methodology construction. Seeking the Archetype is the main task of prototype criticisms. The theoretical limitation of prototype criticism lies in mixing the literary images and the cultural images and tracing the Archetypes in anthropological sense. The aesthetic dimension of literature studies is sheltered by the limitations both in the theory and the practice of p Archetypal criticism. The method of multiple evidences is based on materials, aiming to rebuild Chinese scholarship with Western resources in the comparative vision. The materials of Chinese and Western without time and space affect the method of multiple evidences. The key to the development of literature anthropology lies in that individual experience is concerned and aesthetic dimension is highlighted in the practice and theory construction of literature anthropology.更多还原