人文科学视野中的文学史书写

【作者】 蔡欢江；

【导师】 王元骧；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 文艺学， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 文学史以历史上存在的文学事实为其对象,因此,文学史乃是一门科学。然而,文学史作为人类实践活动的产物,它又不同于自然史。从历史唯物主义的观点来看,它是社会存在的反映,受社会存在的制约,因此,在某种程度上可以说文学史是他律的。然而它又有自身发展的特殊规律,因此它又具有自律性。文学史作为一门科学必须对这一矛盾予以妥善的处理。从文学史书写的历史来看,对这个问题存在着几种不同的观点和处理方式。丹纳、勃兰兑斯以及普列汉诺夫等人的着重点都在于从社会环境的因素来解释文学艺术的发展,而对于文学系统内的因素对文学发展的影响却缺少应有的认识。出于对这种倾向的反拨,俄国形式主义和沃尔夫林等人则注重从文学艺术的形式方面来考察文学艺术的发展。但他们在强调文学艺术的形式因素时却不知不觉地陷入到形式主义的泥潭,因此也就无法科学的说明文学艺术的发展。豪泽尔则试图对上述两种理论倾向进行综合。他主张艺术的发展是由外部的社会环境因素和艺术内部的因素共同决定的。同时他又不是把两者机械地拼合在一起,而是积极探寻社会环境向艺术转化的机制。我们的文学史理论必须在坚持历史唯物主义基本观点的同时积极吸收上述理论思想有益的部分,既要认识到经济基础对文学发展最终的决定性作用,也要看到社会心理的中介作用以及文学系统内部因素的推动作用,与此同时也要加强社会因素向文学艺术转化机制的研究。文学史是一门科学,但科学从总体上又可以分为三类,即自然科学、社会科学和人文科学。按照这种分类方式,文学史又属于人文科学。对于人文科学来说,它不仅要像自然科学与社会科学一样探寻知识,即客观事物存在、发展、变化的自身规律;它更要探寻价值,即客观事物对于人生存的意义。因此,人文科学就其本性来看就主要是价值和意义的科学。而价值作为一种主体性的事实,是由对象能否满足主体的需要而产生的,并以主体自身存在和需要的变化为转移,所以人文科学更关注对象的特殊性和个别性。价值则有赖于人而存在,是通过人自身活动所形成并以事物是否契合主体自身的需要为转移的,因此,它就不能完全凭实证或逻辑的方法,而是还必须通过评价性的认识,如解释学所提出的“理解”与“解释”才能掌握。科学具有客观性的品格,人文科学也不例外。因此,在文学史书写中就必须尊重文学作品自身的规定性。然而,从人文性的角度来看,研究者总是从自身的审美趣味和审美经验出发去阅读文学作品的,每个人的经验和趣味都不相同,从作品中所看到的东西自然也不会完全相同。因此,对于文学史研究来说,既要反对实证主义,也要反对完全否定文学史的客观性,把文学史视为接受史的做法。更多还原

【Abstract】 Literature history take literature facts as it’s object. so literature history is a science. However literature is the outcome of practice activity, it differs from the history of nature from the view of historical materialism, it is a reflection of social existence, be conditioned by social existence. So it can be said to be heteronomous on a certain degree. But it has the special regulation of itself, so it is also autonomic. Since literature is a science, it must handle this contradiction appropriately. Taine, Brandes and Plekhanov all stressed to explain the development of literature from social circumstance, but they were impercipient to the importance of the inner factors of literature system. While on the contrary, Russian formalism and Wolfflin stressed to investigate the development of literature from the form of literature. But they plunged in formalism unconsciously, so they couldn’t explain the development of literature. Hauser insist that the development of literature is conditioned by external social circumstance and internal formal factors. At the same time, he didn’t patch up these two factors automatically. He searched the mechanism of transformation actively. On one hand, our theory of literature history must adhere to historical materialism; on the other hand, we must also absorb the instructive part of the above theories. We should note not only the economic base determines the development of literature ultimately but also the social psychology’s role as a medium and the impulse of interior elements of literature. At the same time, we should also pay more attention to the mechanism how social elements affect literature.The history of literature is a science. The latter can be divided into threes kinds: natural science, social science and human studies. According to this classification, the history of literature belongs to human studies. Human studies should explore knowledge, with the law of existence, development and change of objective things. Meanwhile, it should explore value, viz. the significance of objective things for human beings. Thus, human studies are science of value and meaning in nature. As a sort of subjective reality, value arises from whether object can satisfy the need of subject and it depends on the existence and the change of the need of subject. So, human studies pay more attentions to the particularity and individuality of object. Value relies upon human beings, shaping from the activities of human being and changing with whether the object can satisfy the need of subject, so, we cannot entirely use the methods of demonstration and logic. In order to master this point, we should also employ appraisive knowledge, such as the ’understanding’ and ’interpreting’ of hermeneutic.Science is objective, so does human studies. Therefore, we must respect the stipulation of literature works in the history of literature. However, from the humanistic view, researchers always understand literature works with their own esthetic interests and experiences. Because their experiences and interests are different, so, the things that they get from the works are not completely identical. For researchers of the history of literature, on one hand they must object positivism, on the other hand they should also object the view that wholly denies the objectivity of literature history and regards it as the history of reception.更多还原