【作者】 周俊；

【导师】 黄万华；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 作为重要的理论文献,毛泽东《在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话》在数十年指导文艺实践的过程中积累了宝贵的经验和教训。描述其建构、转变、定型的历史进程,总结探讨它在文学史上的地位、影响和局限,是20世纪中国文学理论建设不可或缺的一部分,也是中国文学现代化和民族化研究的重要内容。因此,对《讲话》的理论和实践形态作系统的、科学的、历史的整体观照、深入研究,反思评价,显得尤为必需和重要。论文将研究范围集中于《讲话》发表的1942年到第一次文代会召开这样一个相对完整的历史时期内,并将主要的研究视野聚焦于《讲话》的理论文本解析、理论对话、理论权威的确立和文本实践等关键性问题上,目的就是为了建立一种清晰合理的阐释框架,力求揭示出这一特殊历史现象发生的某些必然性,也是为了从一些新的角度来对已有成果进行有效整合,拓展《讲话》研究的深度和广度。第一章以1943年版《讲话》文本为研究对象,通过对《讲话》基本理论层次的分析和阐释,来还原《讲话》文艺思想产生的问题语境,展示其整体性的思维特征和理论意义。论文认为,尽管《讲话》中的文艺思想可以归结为若干个重要的理论命题,但它的基本形态却可以被清晰地划分为三个层面:从意识形态思想延伸出来的文艺观,以人民为本位的文艺构想和对中外文艺理论传统的整合。在第一个层面上,论文在充分占有和细致梳理文献资料的基础上,将毛泽东意识形态思想与《讲话》相关论述进行比较研究后,论证了毛泽东在抗战前后逐渐发展成熟,并在《新民主主义论》中得以确立的意识形态思想,构成了《讲话》文艺观念的理论基点。文艺作为意识形态构成要素,以及它具有阶级性和实践性的观点,是毛泽东分析和解决文艺问题的基本原则和方法论,成为《讲话》所有关键性立论的理论基础。毛泽东相当准确地把握住了文艺作为意识形态的一般属性,把握住了作家的生活实践作为意识形态生产起点和源泉的一般特征,把握住了文艺创作作为意识形态生产过程的一般规律,却无意于论述文艺创作的特殊规律,因此,《讲话》并非一般文艺理论著作,而是毛泽东文艺观的集中体现。在第二个层面上,论文集中分析了毛泽东“人民的文学”观,即以人民为本位的文艺构想及其实践形态。在理论层面,毛泽东继承和发展了马克思主义的文学人民性思想和五四以来的平民文学思想,建立了一种以满足劳动人民的文化权利为核心的革命文艺发展模式,充分体现了他革命的唯物史观和使人民成为文化真正主人的理想主义追求。在实践层面,毛泽东从具体的历史处境出发,借助于矛盾的优先性原则,经由一系列对立统一范畴的分析探讨,将前述文艺构想转化为相应的实践性准则。这些规范性准则,在很大程度上规约了革命文艺创作、研究和阐释的视野,使《讲话》具有了某种范式意义。而矛盾自身的不可化约性和可转化性,也使这些矛盾的组合在不同时期处于变动不居的状态之中,具有可供解释的多种可能性。在第三个层面上,论文集中探讨了《讲话》与列宁文艺思想及中国左翼文艺思想之间的历史联系。毛泽东“党的文学”观,是在抗战时期党的领导日趋一元化的特殊背景下,列宁出版物党性原则的中国化。它源于列宁主义的国家理论和政党学说,要求将文艺作为意识形态的组成部分和重要载体,整合成为革命链条上不可或缺的一环,并进而在文艺的具体运作和组织管理上建立起一整套与苏联相仿的规范性体系。“人民的文学”和“党的文学”观既内在统一于文艺的阶级性,又在文艺的实践性上复杂纠结,呈现出一种丰富而独特的张力结构,深刻影响了毛泽东对左翼文艺思想的整合路径。毛泽东在文艺的阶级性、社会主义现实主义等问题上继承了左翼文艺的主流观念,同时在关于文艺的人民性和知识分子思想改造等问题上又吸收了鲁迅文艺思想中的重要观点。这种整合反映了《讲话》与左翼文艺之间的历史联系,也体现了毛泽东文艺思想与鲁迅文艺思想之间的离合关系。第二章分析了《讲话》与四十年代国统区重要文艺思想之间的对话关系。从四十年代文艺理论发展的基本格局来看,《讲话》与以沈从文、朱光潜为代表的自由主义文艺思想,胡风、冯雪峰的革命现实主义文艺思想之间,构成了某种实质性的对话关系。《讲话》与自由主义文艺思想的分歧归根到底是两种文化革新思路的冲突。朱光潜、沈从文继承和发展了五四首倡的国民性批判和审美启蒙之途,体现了以学院体制为依托,以知识分子为主体,以审美性和实践性为特征、以塑造民族精神主体性为目的的学院派文化精神。毛泽东则继承了五四以后左翼文艺运动开创的革命启蒙之路,它所体现的是一种以政党国家体制为基础、以职业革命家为主体,以阶级性和实践性为特征,以建构无产阶级意识形态为目的的政治文化精神。对文艺审美自律性的重视确实是朱光潜、沈从文文艺观的重要特征,但他们并未把这种自律性作封闭狭隘的理解,走入“为艺术而艺术”的误区,而是强调艺术与生活实践的广泛联系,通过审美的功能来更加有效地反作用于社会现实,这与他们的学院派文化精神、文化理想主义是有着内在一致性的。强调文艺超越现实功利的精神作用,追求人生的艺术化,与注重文艺与现实的联系,追求艺术的为人生,构成了朱光潜、沈从文文艺观不可分割的两个方面。正是这种二重性使其与《讲话》确立的文艺服从政治的他律性原则相冲突,又在文艺实践的诸多层面暗相契合。胡风、冯雪峰的革命现实主义文艺观,代表着革命文艺阵营内部与《讲话》不同的理论诉求。追根溯源,这一文艺观更为接近恩格斯关于现实主义创作方法的论述,对历史真实性的追求,对于作家主观实践的重视构成了其内在特征;而《讲话》中关于“无产阶级现实主义”的论述,也同样是恩格斯所阐明的现实主义意识形态功能合乎逻辑的发展。《讲话》与胡风、冯雪峰的革命现实主义文艺观的分歧,反映出他们接受和阐释马克思主义现实主义理论的不同路向,决定了他们对于五四新文艺和鲁迅现实主义创作历史地位的不同理解。其次,冯雪峰、胡风通过将“政治”概念置换为“生活”概念,将理性抽象的阶级斗争还原为感性具体的生活实践,从而将《讲话》所构筑的政治决定文艺的单向不可逆结构还原为文艺反映生活的双向对逆结构,启动了文艺与政治关系问题上的方法论还原,即由决定论的文艺观向反映论的文艺观的根本转向。这种根本转向,源于毛泽东和胡风、冯雪峰接受马克思主义唯物史观的不同倾向及其对文艺观的深刻影响,也反映出《讲话》文本中所隐含的深刻矛盾。源于鲁迅哲学的“主观战斗精神”和“主观战斗力”,是胡风、冯雪峰革命现实主义观的核心概念。作家对人民的深刻认同和强烈的自我意识,深入人民生活探求历史真实的实践和感性的个体伦理立场,构成了这一概念相互联系的两个层面。这使它与《讲话》中“人民的文学”观和文艺的实践性相遇合,又与“党的文学”观和文艺的阶级性相疏离。第三章分析了《讲话》权威性确立的历史必然性和建构过程。论文认为,这种权威地位的确立,既是一种历史逻辑的必然,也是理论阐释和思想斗争的结果。《讲话》所提出的文艺观以及所运用的思维方法,涉及哲学思想、意识形态思想、统一战线思想,群众观点和建党思想等诸多内容,充分体现了正处于形成期的毛泽东思想的精髓,这使它成为延安整风前后毛泽东思想宣传的重要文献之一。正是在这一过程中,毛泽东作为革命领袖的个人权威、中共的政治权威和马克思主义的理论权威都逐渐移位或者附着于《讲话》之中,使其权威性的确立具有了某种历史的必然性。周扬《马克思主义与文艺》和邵荃麟《马恩的文艺批评》对《讲话》所进行的全面阐释,实现了它与苏联马克思主义文艺理论权威体系的历史性对接,发掘出了《讲话》的马克思主义原理内涵,极大地提升了它的理论品格,进一步确立了其在文艺理论和文艺批评领域内的权威地位。而经过战后在重庆和香港发起的文艺整风运动,胡风文艺思想、自由主义文艺思想等都被明确定性为小资产阶级或地主资产阶级的思想,沦为改造和批判的对象,失去了与《讲话》分庭抗礼的资格,这为确立《讲话》全国性的独尊地位,实现党对文艺界一元化的思想控制扫除了最后的障碍。第四章通过对解放区经典文本的解读,分析《讲话》指导下解放区的文艺实践。第一部分集中探讨了《讲话》所预设的创作成规对解放区创作的总体制约作用。《讲话》提出的现实主义的生活经验和思想观念两个层面,以及现实主义的表现方法和马克思主义的立场观点之间的对立统一,是制约解放区文艺实践的总体性矛盾。对于解放区作家来说,如何根据文艺运动发展的趋势、文艺体裁特点和自身的艺术个性,来恰当处理这些矛盾关系,找到比较合适的平衡点和联结方式,成为艺术创作中必须加以解决的问题。尽管处于这种文艺创作的“悬置”状态中,出现过诸多顾此失彼的偏差,但在少数生活积累丰富的作家那里,各种突围的尝试和努力仍然取得了不同程度的成功。第二部分主要分析了《讲话》指引下解放区文艺形式的变革。《讲话》关于改造旧形式和群众文艺形式的论述,主导了解放区文艺形式变革的方向。这一变革实质上是战争环境中革命意识形态对传统文艺资源的一种全方位的借用和整合,它一方面使现代意义上的革命政治得以寄身于传统形式之内,排除了农民接受心理上的障碍,使其更易于达到对革命政治合法性的认同。另一方面也使传统政治理念和思维方式假革命之手卷土重来,在很大程度上置换或遮蔽了革命的现代性本质,造成了解放区文本中内容与形式、革命与传统的复杂纠结。但归根到底,传统形式并不构成与革命政治相抗衡的另一种力量。在革命所包含的现代性逻辑支配之下,解放区文本终究将摆脱传统文艺资源的潜在影响,通过对传统形式因素的消解和超越,使革命的真正意义和价值得以凸显。更多还原

【Abstract】 As an important theoretical document,Mao Zedong’s "Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art " has accumulated precious experience and lessons learned in the decades to guide the process of artistic practice.Description of its construction,changes in the historical process of stereotypes,and summing up to explore it at the status, impact and limitations in literary history,is an integral part of the building 20th century Chinese literary theory,but also an important content of the modernization and Nationalization of Chinese literature studies.Therefore,it is particularly necessary and important to take a systematic,scientific,historic view of the theoretic and practical form of "Talks " and make an in-depth study and evaluation on it.This Dissertation will focus the study on such a relatively complete historical period from 1942 when " Talks " was issued to when The first National Congress of Literary and art workers was held.It will mainly focus the research view on the four the key issues of " Talks ": theory analysis,theoretical dialogue,establishment of theoretical authority and Creative Practice.The purpose of this is to establish a clear and reasonable interpretation framework,and reveal the inevitability of this special Historical situation happened,but also make an effective Integration of existing research results and expand the depth and breadth of research on " Talks "Chapter one makes the 1943 edition of " Talks " as the research object,restores problem context of thoughts in " Talks " and demonstrates its thinking Characteristics and Theoretical significance through analysis and interpretation of basic theoretical levels in " Talks ".This Dissertation states even though the thoughts in " Talks " can be attributed to a number of important theoretical proposition,but its theory can be clearly divided into three basic levels:the literary thought extending from the ideology from,the people-based concepts and integration of Chinese and foreign literary theories.At the first level,the dissertation fully possesses and meticulously combines the literature,makes a comparative study on Mao Zedong’s ideology thoughts and Related discussion in " Talks ".On this basis it Demonstrates that MaoZedong’s ideology thoughts,which developed in the Anti-Japanese War and established in " New Democratic Theory " constitutes the theoretical foundation of the concept of " Talks ".Mao Zedong considers that literature as an element of ideology,as well as it has characters of class and practice.This opinion is the basic principles and methodology for Mao to analyze and solve art problem,but also the theoretical basis of all the key arguments in" Talks ".Mao Zedong fairly accurately gasps the general characteristics of literary as an ideology,the general characteristics of a writer’s Practice as the starting point and the source of the ideology,and the general rules of literary creation as a process of ideological production.But Mao is not intend to discuss the special laws governing literary creation,therefore,"Talks " is not a general theory of literature and art works,but a concentrated expression of Mao Zedong’s literature and art art concept.At the second level,the dissertation analyzes the Mao Zedong’s concept of " people’s literature ",that is the people-based concept and practice of literary and artistic forms.In the theoretical respect,Mao inherited and developed the Marxist literary thought of the people and idea of civilian literary since the May Fourth New Culture Movement.He set up a model for development of revolutionary literature at the core of meeting the needs of working people’s cultural rights,which fully embodies his materialist history conception of the revolution and his ideal pursuit of making the people become true masters of the culture.In the practical respect,Mao Zedong analyzes the specific historical situation, use the priority of conflicting principles,and study a series of dialectics concept.Then Mao changes the the forementioned literature concept into some corresponding practical guidelines.To a large extent,these practical guidelines limit the the vision of the revolutionary literary creation,research and explain,so " Talks "has a certain meaning of paradigm.Meantime Contradictions’ irreducibility and possibility of transform makes its own in the changing status at different times,and has a variety of possibilities to explain.At the third level,the dissertation focused on thecontact between " Talks " and Lenin’s thoughts and the Chinese Left-wing literary." Party’s Literature " is Sinicization of Lenin’s " the principle of party’s publication " under the special backgroup of tending to unify the communist party’s leadership at the Anti-Japanese War.It originated from the Leninism country and political theory,which regards literature and art as an integral part and an important carrier of the ideology,makes it become an indispensable part of revolution chain ring,and thus sets up a set of system on the operation and management of literature similar to the Soviet Union."People’s Literature" and "Party’s Literature" are united in the class character of literature and art,but also are entangled in practice character.They show a rich and unique tension structure,and throw a profound impact on Mao Zedong’s path to integrate idea of Left-wing literature and art.Mao Zedong inherits the mainstream concepts of Left-wing literary on such issues as the class character of literature and socialist realism literature,but also absorbs the idea of Lu Xun Literary opinion on such questions as the people and intellectuals.This integration reflects historical contact between" Talks" and the Left-wing literary and artistic,but also embodies the clutch between the idea of Mao Zedong and Lu Xun.Chapter two analyzes the important dialogue relations between "Talks " and the literary thought in Kuomintang areas tn 1940s.Seeing from the basic pattern of literary theory development in forties,there is a kind of substantive dialogue among " Talks ",the liberalism literary thoughts represented by Shen Congwen,Zhu Guangqian, and the revolutionary realism literary thought of Hu Feng,Feng Xuefeng.The differences between" Talks " and the liberalism literary thoughts is Fundamentally a conflict between two culture innovation ideas.Zhu,Shen have inherited and developed the way of criticizing the Chinese national character and the aesthetic Enlightenment,which advocated by The May Fuoryh New Culture Movement.It embodies an academic culture spirit that is college-based,regards the intellectuals as the main body,has aesthetic and practical features and is for creating a new national spirit.Mao Zedong has inherited the road of the revolution Enlightenment created by Left-wing literary movement after The May Fourth New Culture Movement,.It embodies is a political culture spirit that is based on national party,regards professional revolutionaries as the main body,has class and practical features and is to build the proletarian ideology.Zhu,Shen indeed attach importance to aesthetic Self-discipline of literature.It is a important feature of their literary concept,but they does not put this self-discipline into a narrow understanding,into the Misunderstanding of " art for art’s sake ",but stress that arts and life practice must contact in a wide range,stress that arts should affect the society reality through its aesthetic functionality.this concept keeps Internal consistency to their academic culture spirit and cultural idealism.There are two indivisible aspects in Zhu,Shen’s concept: the first is pursuit of artistic life,emphasis on the spiritual role of literature Beyond the utilitarian reality;the second is emphasis on contacts between literature and reality,the pursuit of art-for-life.It is in conflict with the law of Requesting literature subject to political established by" Talks ",but also aligned in many dimensions of literary practice.The revolutionary realism concept of Hu Feng,Feng Xuefeng is on behalf of a different theoretical demand from "Talks " in revolutionary literature camp.Tracing to its source,their artistic concept is closer to Engels’dicourse about realism methods.It has two internal characteristics--- the pursuit of historical truth and the emphasis on writer’s subjective practice.However,the proletarian realism in " Talks " is also a logical development from Engels’ discourse about the ideology functions of Realism literature.This conflicts between" Talks " and Hu Feng,Feng Xuefeng’s revolutionary realism literary concept reflect their different routes to accept and interpret the Marxist theory of realism,but also determine their different understanding of The May Fourth New Literature and historical status of Luxun’ realism creation.Secondly,Feng Xuefeng,Hu Feng replace the concept of " political " in" Talks" for that of " life " and restore the livelihood form abstract class struggle to specific perceptual practice.By this means,they trace the irreversible one-way structure in which Literature must serve the political in" Talks "back to an inverse two-way structure of literature and life,launched a restore to the methodology of relations between literary and political,that is,from literary determinism to literary theory of reflection.This fundamental shift due to different inclination between Mao Zedong and Hu Feng,Feng Xuefeng to accept the Marxist historical materialism and its impact on their literary concept.That also reflects profound contradictions in " Talks ".The terms as " Subjective Fighting Spirit " and " Subjective Combating Strength ",which come from Lu Xun’s philosophy,are key concepts of Hu Feng,Feng Xuefeng’s revolutionary realism thoughts.This concept includes two mutual aspects:Writer’s profound identity of the people and a strong self-awareness,in-depth historical practice to explore the real life and individual ethical position.This makes it meet with " People’s Literature" concept in "Talks ",but also deviated from " Party’s Literature " concept and the class feature of literature. Chapter three Analyzes the historical inevitability of" Talks " authority establishment and how it was constructed.This dissertation concludes that authority establishment of" Talks "meet with the historical logic,but also is the result of the theoretical interpretation and the struggle in the field of thought.The literary concept and thinking method in " Talks " are related to a plenty of thoughts,such as philosophy,ideology,the united front,the masses and party.It fully reflects the essence of Mao Zedong thought at the formative stage,which make it one of the important documents of Mao Zedong Thoughts publicity before and after The Yan’an Rectification Movement.In this process,Mao Zedong’s personal authority as a revolutionary leader,the political authority of Chinese Communist Party and the authority of Marxist theory have gradually shift or attached to " Talks ".Thus it is a certain inevitable for" Talks" to establish its authority.Zhou Yang’s " Marxism and Literature and Art " and Shao Quanlin’s " The Lliterary Criticism of Marx and Engels " conduct a comprehensive interpretation of" Talks " This interpretation makes " Talks " historically docking on the authority system of the Marxist Literary Theory in the Soviet Union,digs out connotation of Marxist principles in " Talks ",and greatly enhances its theoretical character.This interpretation established the authority of" Talks " in the field of literary theory and literary criticism.In the Rectification Movement was launched in Chongqing and Hong Kong after The Anti-Japanese War,Hu Feng’s literary thoughts,liberalism literature ideas was regarded as petty bourgeois or bourgeois landlord thoughts, reduced to the objects of transformation and the critical,and lost equal qualifications to " Talks ".As a result," Talks " occupied a national position and the Party controlled the thoughts of the literary circles without no obstacles.Chapter four analyzes artistic practice under the guidance of" Talks " in the liberated areas by reading classic texts.The first part focuses on how the writing etique -tte in " Talks " overally limite the artistic practice in the liberated areas.A general contradiction in " Talks ",which is involved two dimensions of the life experience and the concept,as well as the artistic expression of realism and the Marxist stand,con -strain artistic practice in the liberated areas in general.for those Writers in the liberated areas,it is urgent to exercise in accordance with the development of literary trends,the characteristics of literary types and their own artistic personality.It is urgent to properly handle the relationship between these contradictions and find a balance point and connection means when writing.Even if in such an "overhanged" status of writing,there were many deviation,but depend on abundant life experience,a small number of writers still successfully break out at varying degrees.The second part studies changes of literary forms in the liberated areas under the guidance of" Talks ".The ideas about transforming the old form and absorbing forms of the masses guide the change of literary and artistic forms in the liberated areas.This change is essentially a full range of integration between ideology in the revolution and traditional literary resources.On one hand,with the traditional form,it would be easier for farmers to receive the modern revolutionary political and recognize its legitimacy.On the other hand,the traditional political ideas and ways of thinking come back by the hands of the revolution,displace or mask the modern nature of the revolution to a large extent.As a result,the text in the liberated areas is entangled between content and form, revolution and tradition.Alter all,the traditional form does not constitute another force against the revolution politics,under the control of the modernity logic in the revolution politics,the text in the liberated areas would free itself from the potential impact of the traditional resources.When the factors of traditional forms were eliminated,the significance and value of the revolution can eventually highlight itself.更多还原