意识形态与范式转换

【作者】 陈正敏；

【导师】 唐金海；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 论文以北京大学现代文学学者的现代文学史观为切入点,以知识考古学和知识社会学为主要理论框架,以意识形态与现代文学史观的关系为中心线索,通过个案研究的方式,考察了49年以来中国现代文学研究中的几种文学史观,并进一步逼问出其文学史的元叙事。在本文中,一种元叙事意义上的文学史观,亦对应一种相应的文学史研究范式。第一章,首先分析了王瑶的《中国新文学史初稿》,认为王瑶的这部重要的文学史著作,反映了王瑶的新文学史观与革命意识形态的同构,本质上是革命意识形态对文学符号与象征系统收编与征用的结果。接着论述了“文革”后王瑶文学史观的重要变化,指出王瑶晚年的现代文学文学史观转向了体现五四启蒙价值理念的启蒙文学史观。而在他生命的最后阶段,他的文学史元叙事,更显示了一种与胡适所代表的启蒙立场的亲近。第二章,先分析了严家炎的现代文学史观,认为的流派研究显示了严家炎多元文学史观念,不过其文学研究的模式,主要还是二十世纪八十年代的现代化模式。接着,论述了孙玉石的文学史观,指出孙玉石的诗歌研究,具有一种追求体系化、系统化的倾向,而且他的中国现代主义诗歌史的研究,显示了他建构东方民族现代诗的构想和雄心。最后,文章论述了谢冕的文学史观,指出谢冕的中国现代文学史叙事,是一种以悲情为主题和主调的文学史叙事。他的文学史叙事中表现出来的整体性思维方式,带有二十世纪八十年代的鲜明烙印。这一代的文学史家所做贡献,主要表现为对中国现代文学史多元景观的恢复和呈现,而他们的研究方式也更多地与二十世纪八十年代的时代精神氛围相密切。第三章主要论述钱理群、陈平原、温儒敏的文学史观。文章认为,在钱理群的中国现代文学史研究中,“苦难”是他文学史叙事的一个最为重要的主题。其文学史观的深刻之处在于,他力求将现代中国人的精神苦难上升为精神支援,从而使他的文学史研究具有了某种超越的品格。同时,论文还通过对钱理群思想语法的分析,指出了他的某些思想陷阱。论文接着论述了陈平原的文学史观,认为陈平原中国现代文学史研究,始终都走着一条独特的道路,而表现出自己的独特思路——寻求中国文学发展自身的“剧情主线”。在这种寻求中,陈平原努力“走出五四”,不为五四先贤的既有理念和研究、认识框架所局限。这使他在进行文学史研究时对历史的连续性表现出强烈兴趣。另外,陈平原的文学史研究,具有一种力求意识形态退隐的自觉追求,而努力使文学史、使学术保持自身的独立性,这又与他学术求真的超越追求相联系。最后,文章指出,陈平原的学术研究,表现出一种承续五四以来的现代学统的自觉意识。温儒敏的现代文学史研究表现出一种稳健的特点,从思想方法到题材都显得较为拘谨。但温儒敏的现代文学史观,反映了现代文学学科要求保持学科内部稳定性的要求,这是学科常规建设的所必需的。这一代现代文学史家的文学史观和他们的文学史研究,与上一代学者的不同在于,他们的文学史研究、文学史观,反映现代文学学科的自我反思——元叙事意义上的自我反思。第四章主要是以孔庆东和李杨为中心,分析了“新左派”文学史观,指出了它与革命意识形态文学史观的联系:他们都把现代文学史与权力相联系,最终使现代文学史成为权力的工具和附属物。第五章主要结合前文论述中国现代文学史研究中的超越关怀问题,就实现现代文学史的超越关怀的方式,提供了一些有价值的思路。更多还原

【Abstract】 The dissertation is to take a close examination on the outlooks of several scholars from Beijing University on modern Chinese literary history in their studies since 1949 and make a further exploration into their meta-narratives of literary history, with archeology and sociology as its main theoretical framework and the relationship between ideology and modern literary history the leading line. According to this dissertation, each literary historical theory in terms of its meta-narrative corresponds to a paradigm in literary historical study. It consists of five chapters:Chapter One: This chapter sets out first to analyze Draft on New Chinese Literary History, an important volume on Chinese literary history by Wangyao, regarding it as a reflection of the isomorphism between the author’s new literary history theory and revolution ideology, which is resulted from the appropriating of representation system by ideology. Then it takes a close look at Wang’s significant shift from his earlier stance to the enlightening perspective on literary history after the Cultural Revolution in his later years. In the final stage of his life, Wangyao’s literary historical meta-narrative displays a kinship with the Enlightenment stance represented by Hushi.Chapter Two: This chapter is an analysis of Yan Jiayan’s theory on modern literary history by revealing that his theory is multi-dimensional and follows the model of the 1980s. Following it is a discussion of the theory of Sun Yushi, whose study on poetry signifies a feature of institutionalization and systematicalization and exhibits his ideal and ambition toward constructing a modern poetics for the Oriental people. As a final part of this chapter, a discussion of Xie Mian’s theory of modern Chinese literary history presents that it is thematically entrenched in a tragic tone and has demonstrated a holistic thinking with an imprint of the 1980s’ model. In all, the literary historians of this generation in issue have served mainly to restore and represent the multi-dimensional panorama of modern Chinese literary history with their research models closely related to the spirit of the 1980s.Chapter Three: This chapter sets its focus on the theories of Qian Liqun, Chen Pingyuan and Wen Rumin. For Qian Liqun, suffering has been the most salient and important motif in his study of modern Chinese literary history, which facilitates the formation of his profound insight in elevating Chinese people’s spiritual plight to a level of spiritual support, and thus endows his study a transcendental quality. Meanwhile, an analysis of Qian’s structure of ideas is made to show some of his ideological traps. As to Chen Pingyuan, he has been taking a unique route in his study of modern Chinese literary history in order to pursue the development of Chinese literature in its own course. In his pursuit, Chen Pingyuan has struggled out of the limitation set by the established thoughts and ideas of the May Fourth pioneers, which arouses his great interest in the historical connectiveness during the course of his research. Another point is made that out of his persistent adherence to academic independence and transcendence, Chen has been consciously seeking the autonomy and self-sufficiency of literary history and its study. Conclusively, Chen’s academic research helps reveal an academic self-consciousness awakened from sleep since the May Fourth. To Wen Rumin, his study of modem Chinese literary history is characterized with a cautious but sound style, which reflects a need for a disciplinary stability and independence of modern literature as a conventional rule for disciplinary construction. Unlike their last-generation predecessors, the literary historians of this generation under scrutiny and their study serve to promote a self-reflectivity orientation in modern literature study in a sense of meta-narrative.Chapter Four: With its focus on Kong Qingdong and Li Yang, this chapter makes an analysis of the "New Left" perspective on modern Chinese literary history, pointing out that it stays in a close tie with revolutionary ideology by linking modern literary history to power and reducing the former to a status of tool and accessory.Chapter Five: As the final part, this chapter casts a comprehensive look at the previous chapters and spares a discussion on the transcendental-preoccupation issue in modern Chinese literary historical study, and makes further attempts to map out some thinking patterns on the ways to actualize the preoccupation.更多还原