从叙述形态论近代主体的建构与他者的关系

【作者】 郑礼琼；

【导师】 谭晶华；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 日语语言文学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本论文以叙述形态为切入点考察了近代主体的建构与他者的关系,研究的具体对象是夏目漱石中期创作的六部作品:《三四郎》、《从那以后》、《门》(前期三部作)与《过了春分时节》《行人》《心》(后期三部作),这些叙事文本在日本近代文学史具有相当的代表性,而且在当时日本社会产生了巨大的影响,构成了某种主导性的叙事倾向,反映了日本作家有关近代自我的思考与探索。18世纪是日本步入近代社会的历史过程,近代主体的建构即近代认同问题成为日本近代文学最为关切的主题之一。而认同问题同时体现为对自我价值和对他者的意义、地位的接受,对他者意义、地位的接受直接关系到自我认同的确立。因此,近代主体身份的确立其实与他者息息相关。本论文的目的在于通过分析夏目漱石中期创作的六个叙事文本,探究建构近代主体的话语机制,换而言之,就是考察主体与他者是如何被纳入不同阶段的近代认同框架之中。本论文由导论、正文(五章)、结语三个部分构成。导论部分评述了六个叙事文本的先行研究,在此基础上提出了论题。然后,解释了论题的总体框架与意义、研究的对象、研究的方法论等,厘定了一些核心概念与关键范畴,同时提出了本论文的创新点。正文分为五个阶段解读了六个文本有关近代主体的建构与他者的关系变化。第一章主要分析了《三四郎》与《从那以后》两个文本。近代认同问题表述为主体与时代、制度的冲突,他者并没有真正进入建构主体的话语机制。近代与传统的冲突在《三四郎》中表述为东京与熊本的空间对立,而《从那以后》则是专制的“旧家”与基于自由恋爱的“新家”的矛盾,两个文本主要采用了第三人称人物有限视角叙述与有限全知叙述。三四郎的人物视角反映了他的近代理想自我,但是,视角的有限性与全知叙述者的客观评论暴露了三四郎前近代的“伪善”思想,他其实只是沉湎于对他者的想象性认同,成为时代的“迷羊”。《从那以后》的身体表述反映了代助固守纯粹自我的“露恶”思想。但是,全知叙述者批判了代助的自我中心主义。“父亲”形象缺席了《三四郎》,象征着近代认同秩序的缺失,近代个体的成长面临一种“真空”状态,或者更准确地说,还没有反抗传统宗法秩序的自我意识。代助为了“自然的爱”与家族断绝了关系,象征着一种弑父仪式。然而,近代主体身份的建构并不是简单地在传统“伪善”与近代“露恶”之间二者择一,更重要的是在确立自我的同时,如何调和“我”与另一个自我即他者的关系。因此,《从那以后》最后提出了“罪”的问题,把近代认同问题引向了主体与他者的关系。第二章集中探讨了《门》的叙事文本,日常叙事使近代主体失去了文明批判等启蒙话语的神圣外衣,“罪”的存在凸现了“新家”面临的合法性危机。《门》出现了复数聚焦,阿米、小六等他者的聚焦和心理透视等打破了主人公的一元叙事,近代主体与他者的关系上升为故事的主题。打不开的“门”象征着近代主体的挫折,宗助基于理性判断的抽象思辩与实践能力的匮乏反映了近代工具理性的弊端,解构与批判近代主体的自我意识过剩成为《过了春分时节》的课题之一。第三章解读了《过了春分时节》的叙事试验,其中,叙事最明显的变化就是导入了他者的故事。叙述分层把须永的故事衔嵌于敬太郎的故事框架中,两者构成了互文关系,隐含着透过他者审视近代主体的目的。敬太郎的“侦探”故事解构了须永第一人称叙述的可靠性,须永作为第一人称叙述者与隐含作者的思想规范并不一致,属于不可靠叙述者,由此批判了近代自我意识过剩的弊端。第四章以《行人》为主要的考察对象,阐释了近代主体的他者化建构。与须永一样,主人公长野一郎仍然陷入了自我意识过剩的困境,因此,两个他者担负了叙述功能:一个是长野二郎,回顾了一郎夫妇的故事;一个是H君,以对话的方式揭示了一郎的心理世界。长野一郎成为二郎、H君的叙述与聚焦对象,他者的叙述实现了近代主体的他者化建构。叙事消解了近代主体在文本中的中心地位,把一郎与阿直放在同一个叙述平面进行探讨,凸现了“旧家”伦理与“我思”的悖论,指出了以夫妇为核心的“新家”理想秩序迟迟未能确立的原因。第五章主要讨论了夏目漱石中期创作的最后一个叙事文本《心》。文学作品与现实不是一种一一对应的关系,而是作为一个系统与客观现实产生联系。因此,《心》的解读必须立足于三个篇章的统一结构,基于各个篇章的系统联系把握故事的真正主题。其实,“先生”与“青年”代表了明治与大正两个时代的知识分子,他们各自的叙述自我与经验自我的距离暗示了两个<第一人称叙述者/主人公>的对话与交流。《心》的故事既可以是“先生”借助与他者(“青年”)的交往回归他者的故事,也可以解读为“青年”通过与他者(“先生”)的交往实现主体成长的故事。换言之,《心》的叙事结构实现了主体与主体的对话与交流,两个叙述层次的“我”互为主体和他者的关系,主体的他者化和他者的主体化强调了一种交流对话的近代认同观念即主体间性。最后,结语部分总结概括了各个章节的核心内容与逻辑关联,并点明结论。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation surveys from the angle of narrative form the relationship between the construction of the modern subject and the others, by analyzing Soseki Natsume’s six works written in the middle period of his writing, namely Sanshiro, And Then, The Gate(the Earlier Three), Until After the Equinox, The Wayfarer, and The Heart(the Later Three). These narrative texts, typical of modern Japanese literature, exerted great influences on the Japanese society at that time, creating a leading narrative tendency and reflecting Japanese writers’reflection and quest of the modern self. In the eighteenth century, when the Japanese society entered into modern times, the construction of the modern subject, i.e. the issue of the modern identity became one of the biggest concerns of modern Japanese literature. The issue of identity is embodied in the acceptance of both the value of self and the meaning and status of others, the acceptance of the latter directly connected with the establishment of self identity. Therefore, the establishment of the status of the modern subject is in fact closely bound up with the others. This dissertation aims at exploring the discourse mechanism constructing the modern subject, by analyzing the six narrative texts written by Soseki Natsume in the middle period of his writing. In other words, this dissertation intends to find out how the subject and others are brought into the modern identity framework of different phases.This dissertation is composed of three parts, namely Introduction, Body(five chapters) and Conclusion. The Introduction part reviews the researches in the past on the six narrative texts, puts forward the thesis of this study, explains the general framework, significance, object and methodology of this study, defines some core concepts and key categories, and points out the originality of this dissertation. The Body part analyses the evolvement of the relationship between the construction of the modern subject and the others seen in the five phases of the six texts. The first chapter analyses two texts--- Sanshiro and And Then. The matter of the modern identity is represented as the conflict between the subject and times and institutions, and the others do not indeed enter the discourse mechanism constructing the subject. The conflict between modern times and tradition is represented as the spatial distance between Tokyo and Kumamoto in Sanshiro and as the contradiction between the dictating“old family”and the“new family”permitting free love in And Then. Both texts are narrated from the third person limited perspective and the limited omniscient perspective. The character perspective of Sanshiro reflects his ideal modern self, but the limitation of the perspective and the objective comments made by the omniscient narrator exposes Sanshiro’s pre-modern idea of“hypocrisy”. Actually he is merely indulged in the imaginary identification with the others and becomes the“stray sheep”of that time. The body-based representation seen in And Then mirrors the idea of“showing evil”of Daisuke, who adheres to his pure self. Yet the omniscient narrator criticizes the egoism of Daisuke. The absence of the image of the“father”symbolizes the absence of the order of modern identity and the“vacuum”faced by modern individuals in their growth, or, to be more exact, the absence of the self awareness rebelling against the order of the traditional patriarchal clan system.Daisuke breaks with his family for the sake of“natural love”, which symbolizes a kill-father ceremony. Despite that, the construction of the modern subject is not only a choice between the traditional“hypocrisy”and the modern“showing evil”, but more importantly an issue of how to conciliate“I”with another self, i.e. the other, when establishing the self. Therefore, And Then finally raises the point of“guilt”and leads the matter of modern identity to the relationship between the subject and the others.The second chapter discusses the text of The Gate and argues that the daily narration tears off from the modern subject the sacred label of initiatory discourses like civilization criticisms, and that the existence of“guilt”gives prominence to the legality crisis threatening the“new family”. In The Gate plural focus appears: The focus and psychological perspective of the others, like Yone and Koroku, disrupts the one-person narration of the hero, and the relationship between the modern subject and the others grows to be the motif of the story. The unopenable“gate”symbolizes the frustration of the modern subject. Sosuke’s abstract speculation based on rational judgement and lack of practice reflects the shortcomings of modern tool rationality, and it becomes one of the tasks of Until After the Equinox to deconstruct and criticise the self awareness surplus seen in the modern subject.The third chapter analyses the narrative experiment conducted in Until After the Equinox and finds out that the most apparent change in narrative form is the introduction of the story of the others. The narrative embeds the story of Sunaga in the story framework of Ketaro at several levels, bringing the two stories into the relationship of intertextuality, aiming impliedly at surveying the modern subject through the eyes of the others. The“detective”story of Ketaro deconstructs the reliability of Sunaga’s first-person narration: Sunaga is an unreliable narrator, because as a first-person narrator he does not share the thinking pattern with the implied author. Thereby the author criticizes the undesirable consequences of modern self awareness surplus.The fourth chapter analyses the text of The Wayfarer,discussing the construction of the transformation of the modern subject into the others. Just like Sunaga, Ichiro Nagano, the hero, is still trapped in the plight of self awareness surplus. Therefore, the task of narration is taken up by two others --- Jiro Nagano, who looks back on the story of the Ichiro couple, and Mr. H, who reveals the inner world of Ichiro through dialog. Ichiro Nagano becomes the object and focus of Jiro’narration and Mr. H, and the narration of the others realizes the construction of the transformation of the modern subject into the others. Narration reduces the dominace of the modern subject in texts, observes Ichiro and Nao from the same narrative perspective, stresses the conflict between the ethics of the“old family”and the idea of“I think”, and points out the reason why the ideal order of the conjugality-based“new family”is not yet established.The fifth chapter mainly analyses The Heart, the last narrative text in the middle period of Soseki Natsume’s writing. Literal works correspond with the reality not on a one-to-one basis, but as a system. Therefore, the analysis of The Heart must be based on the structure of the three articles as a whole, and the true motif can only be detected from the systematic inter-relationship of these articles. Actually, the“professor”and the“young man”represent the intellectuals of the Meiji Period and the Taisho Period respectively and the differences in their narrating and experiencing of self imply the dialog and communication between the two“first-person narrators/heroes”. The Heart, a story about a“professor”returning to the other through associating with the other (the“young man”), can also be construed as a story about the growth of a“young man”(the subject) through associating with the other(the“professor”). In other words, the narrative structure of The Heart realizes the dialog and communication between two subjects. The“I”s at the two levels of narration act as the subject and the other mutually. The transformation of the subject into the other and vise versa emphasizes a kind of modern identity concept based on dialog and communication, i.e. intersubjectivity.Finally, the Summary part summarizes the main contents and the logic inter-relationship of the five chapters and draws conclusions.更多还原