【作者】 吴玉英；

【导师】 曾繁仁；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 文艺学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 新中国建立以来,俄苏文论就一直是我国文论学界关注的中心之一。大致说来,我们的研究经历了一个由以现实主义理论为中心,逐步扩大到对形式主义等其他文论领域的开拓发展过程,并取得了丰硕的成果。然而,我们的俄苏文论研究又存在着很大程度的偏食,在不同的时期,批评的目光往往过于集中在一些热点问题的探讨上,对于其他的一些批评理论却研究得很不充分,留下了许多研究的空白。因此,填补这些批评理论研究的空白已经成为我国俄苏文论界亟待完成的一项重要任务。19世纪的俄苏文论资源是十分丰富的,其中俄国学院派所取得的成就尤为突出,虽然在时间上出现于我们的“背后”,却仍值得中国文论界予以关注,亟待我们根据新时代的要求进行再开发、再阐述、再思考。作为文艺学心理学派的代表,库利科夫斯基别具一格的文学创作心理学理论奠定了俄国文艺心理学的地位。而对库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学理论的专门研究国内尚无人问津,是目前国内学术界的一个空白点。有鉴于此,笔者试图为改变这种局面做出自己的一点努力,尝试补充接受这份文论遗产。本文是国内第一篇系统探讨俄国库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学思想的博士论文,从这个意义上说,这一选题本身是富有开创性和学术价值的。库利科夫斯基的研究范畴十分广泛,除了文艺学之外,语言学、神话学、文化史学和心理学也一并囊括在内。他有意将这些研究领域融为一体,以求在文学创作心理学研究的基础上建立起文学史和文化史。所以本文以库氏的这种研究思路为出发点,选择其焦点问题——文学创作心理学为题,以期把握他的基本学术思想。笔者在加强第一手俄文资料细读的基础上进行了自己的思考和总结,得出了独立见解。论文采用系统梳理和深度开采相结合的方法,由外而内逐层深入地分析背景,厘清概念,理顺关系,揭示内涵,辨析不足,最后作学理阐释,宏观概括,客观评价。论文力求从库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学思想发展的逻辑进程中,发掘其独到见解和开拓性贡献,发现其丰富理论资源的当代价值,以引起中国学界对这位独特学者的重视,同时也希冀能够对我国未来文艺心理学的发展有所启发和借鉴,丰富我国文艺心理学理论体系的大厦。论文除导论和结语外,正文部分主要包括五章内容。第一章主要介绍了库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学形成的理论渊源。这一章主要从库利科夫斯基与波捷布尼亚、历史文化学派的关系问题入手,对其文学创作心理学思想的理论渊源进行了详细的梳理和研究,并进一步指出了其理论思想的变革和超越。一方面,库利科夫斯基是在导师波捷布尼亚的影响下最终明确并形成了自己研究的立足点。他的文学创作心理学继承并发展了波捷布尼亚的理论,研究语言、思维和创作心理问题,以及在文艺学领域里从心理学角度研究伟大作家和抒情诗人的创作与作品;另一方面,俄国文艺学心理派的兴起与发展,可以说是在历史文化学派的基础上发展起来的。由于历史文化学派着重研究的是文学的外部联系,日益暴露了局限性,这就迫使库利科夫斯基另辟蹊径,提出要重视作家创作个性和创作心理的研究。他在吸收其理论精华的同时注意克服不足,不仅考虑“环境”和其他外部因素的影响,而且还考虑艺术家独特的创作个性、他的心理气质等特点,一定程度上实现了对历史文化学派的超越。第二章考察了库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学形成的时代历史语境。19世纪中后期,随着自然科学的迅速发展,特别是现代心理学的产生和长足发展,文学创作心理学才渐渐形成一种专门的学科,并很快取得了一定的成果。文艺学走向文艺心理学成为历史的必然,我们认为促成这一局面的原因主要有以下几个方面:一、文学和心理学有着天然的联系;二、19世纪晚期到20世纪初,文学艺术出现了向人物的心性和心灵“内向”的“转移”;三、人本主义思潮突出人、人的生命存在的“人学”主题,构成了连接文艺学和心理学的又一内在纽带。另外,科学意义上的、系统的俄国文艺学研究正式展开于19世纪中期,一大批学识渊博、视野开阔的院士潜心于文艺学不同领域的研究,在较短的时间里取得一批具有世界影响的学术成果,形成了俄国文艺学中重要的学院派传统。俄国“学院派”最有影响的是四个派别:神话学派、历史文化学派、历史诗学、心理学派。就整体而言,四个学派在方法论上各有特点和局限,但却并不是各自独立,而呈现出某种综合交叉影响的局面。库利科夫斯基的文学创作心理学就是在这样的历史语境中孕育发展的。第三章梳理辨析了库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学的基本对应范畴。库利科夫斯基对于可以涵盖整个艺术创作世界的基本范畴始终都有一份难以言喻的偏爱。论文对散文式词语和诗歌式词语、日常思维和艺术思维、观察艺术和实验艺术、主观创作和客观创作、自我中心主义和非自我中心主义五大基本范畴进行了深入分析研究,并进一步指出了它们的特点、功能以及在文学创作心理学理论体系中的地位。库利科夫斯基通过研究词语本身,认为现代语言都可以分为两大类:散文式词语和诗歌式词语(艺术性词语),指出了语言中所能找到的艺术要素;他发现艺术思维活动与日常思维活动所表现出来的艺术特征和艺术手法具有很多的相似性,二者之间存在着十分密切的心理共性;他尝试把科学方法论运用于文学艺术领域中,把艺术划分为“观察艺术”和“实验艺术”,加强了对创作心理活动研究的科学性;他研究了思维、感觉与“我”的关系,得出“自我中心主义”与“非自我中心主义”的著名命题,成为世界文艺心理学理论中一个独特的提法。这些基本范畴都是库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学主要的研究成果之所在。第四章主要考察了库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学的理论建构。对文学创作心理学中的重要课题有没有一个正确的认识,是会对整个文艺心理学研究发生深刻影响的。论文在问题意识的指导下,结合库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学的理论阐述和批评实践,总结出其在文学创作心理学理论建构中想要解决的一些重要问题。虽然相对于整个文学创作心理学来说,库氏所解决的问题是很有限的,但却是非常重要的,它们能启发我们从不同的视角去思考更多、更深刻的创作心理命题。库利科夫斯基认为艺术家创造艺术典型的本质是演绎无限的可能性,他把艺术典型最根本的心理特征看成一个无限的过程,它不是一次完成的,而是永无止境的;他非常清楚地认识到在思维活动中,所谓的无意识领域在高级脑力活动的文学创作中具有最最重要的意义,这标志着对于无意识问题认识的深化;他在对果戈里创作——“从那美妙迷人的远方所看到的俄罗斯”——的分析中包含着一个深刻的创作心理理论:审美距离是文学创作的一个必不可缺少的心理条件;他把创作自由归结为作家的内在自由,这种自由从创作心理的角度看就是作家从内外各种束缚、各种限制中超越出来的一种最佳创作心境;在库利科夫斯基看来,在人的各种价值中,社会价值的实现是第一位和最重要的,而文学创作是无法实现的社会价值的一种替代性心理补偿。第五章考察了库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学的批评实践。论文从库利科夫斯基的文学心理批评出发,从艺术批评实践的角度来看他的文学创作心理学理论。我们认为库利科夫斯基的文学创作心理学既注重理论建构,又重视作家作品心理的批评实践。库氏的文学创作心理学思想可以分为两个阶段,前期主要是有意识地注意微观创作心理——个性心理特征的分析,他在对古典作家作品进行心理分析时已经涉及到了三个层面——作者、作品、读者,这就为其理论增添了丰富的感性材料,也为人们进一步探索个性心理分析模式奠定了很好的基础。运用文艺心理学的方法来评论作家作品和揭示艺术创作复杂的心理内涵,确实是独具一格的,但其局限性也是十分明显的。库利科夫斯基在其学术活动的后期有所察觉,他把心理学方法论和历史文化学派的方法论有机地整合起来,提出了社会心理类型的概念,把文学史的过程作为社会变动和各种社会心理类型更替的过程加以考察。库利科夫斯基在《俄国知识分子史》中对于社会心理的重视是最引人注目的,他通过对俄国文学中“多余人”等典型形象的精神生活的分析,从历史文化的高度观照了19世纪俄国社会转折时期知识分子的心路历程。库利科夫斯基的文学创作心理学没有断然斩断作品历史文化语境的血脉,一定程度上超越了欧美同时代的文艺心理学理论学说,具有极高的学术价值。最后部分是结语,概括总结了库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学的研究特点、历史意义,并指出了其存在的局限性。库利科夫斯基的文学创作心理学在不断地修正和调整中彰显了自己鲜明的个性特征:实证研究和作品研究相结合的研究方法;理论建构和实践检验相结合的学术理念;宏观把握和微观深入相结合的整体意识;学术研究和社会激情相分离的治学态度。总体看来,库氏理论对于解决当时某些创作心理问题具有不容置疑的积极意义,是文艺心理学方法论走向成熟和完善不可缺少的必要的一环,其中的某些观点至今仍具有科学价值。当然,并不是他所有的理论观点都保持着自身的价值和不容置疑的真理性,因理论体系比较散乱,头绪杂多,他的论述也时有自相矛盾之处。对于理论中存在的缺憾、局限和很多没有解决的问题,我们也应该有清醒的认识和批判。总之,无论是就库利科夫斯基思想本身的价值而言,还是他作为学者治学的精神而言,都是值得我们重视和借鉴的。我国的文艺心理学研究还没有很充分地展开,我们要建设发展当代文艺心理学,既要立足于本民族的深厚根基和当下的文艺创作实践,又必须重视文化的外求和横向的拓展,必须以平等的态度来面对、参照“他者”文化。而在众多的外来资源中,俄国文艺心理学的经验和教训是最值得我们认真总结的。库利科夫斯基的文学创作心理学尽管还不能称之为理论体系,尽管他闪耀着智慧光芒的观点显得有些零碎而片断,但却留下了很多供人挖掘的思想线索。还原库利科夫斯基文学创作心理学理论历史的本来面目并不是我们的终极目的,而是希望以此为参照来审视我们自己的文艺心理学建设。笔者相信,对库氏的文学创作心理学理论所作的研究阐发,一定能达到“他山之石,可以攻玉”之效。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the establishement of new China, Russia-Soviet literature theory has been one of academic center of Chinese scholars. Generally, our research has gone through a process from a theory centered by realism to a theory covers many other fields including formalism theory, and achieved fruitful results. However, our research is largely biased. According to different periods, the critics are often too concentrated on the hot issues, while for other research of critical theory, the research is very inadequate, leaving a lot of blanks. Therefore, to fill those theoretical blanks has become the great mission among Chinese Russia-Soviet literature theory circle.Russia-Soviet literature theory in 19th century are very rich in resources. Russian Academism had made prominent achievements in this period. Started later than our research, but it is still worthy of attention on the sector and draw lessons from, we need re-develop, further elaborate and re-consider it according to our request in new time. As representative figure of psychology, Coolekovski’s unique psychological theory of literature laid the psychological theory academic status in the Russian literature theory academic circle. But up to now, no one care about Coolekovski’s literary creation theory of psychology in Chinese academic circle. In view of this, I try to change this situation and accept this literary theory heritage.This thesis is the first doctoral dissertation aimed to study Coolekovski’s literature creation theory of psychology in China. In this sense, this subject should be a initiating and valuable topic. Coolekovki’s study realm is very broad. Except for theory of literature and art, linguistics, mythology, cultural history and psychology are also included. He intended to integrate these fields to establish literary history and cultural history based on literature creation psychology. In this paper, my study abides by Coolekovski’s research ideas as a start, selects the focus point- literature creation psychology, to grasp Coolekovski’s basic academic thought.I have read the first-hand Russian data about this topic and come to an independent opinion after thinking and summing up. I use system sorting and deep mining method to study Coolekovski’s theory. I analyze the background from outside to interior layer-by-layer, clarify the concept, arrange the logic, reveal the connotation, analyze the insufficient. At last I explain in theory, summarize in macro, give it objective evaluation, so we can see the whole picture. The thesis try to unearth Coolekovski’s unique insights and pioneering contributions, meanwhile, to discover the contemporary value of his theory from the development process of his psychology literature. Through my thesis, I’d like to attract Chinese scholars’ attention about Coolekovski’s study, also hope that this theis could give some enlightening to Chinese future development of literature psychology and then enrich Chinese literature psychology theory.Except for introduction and conclusions, the main of the thesis has five chapters.The first chapter introduced the formation and theoretical origin of Coolekovski’s literature creation psychology. Begun with the relation between Coolekovski, Pozechbunia and Cultural-Historical School, this chapter elaborated the theoretical origin of his literature creation psychology, and further point out the change and deviation in his theory. On the one hand, Coolekovski finally finished and made clear his own research foothold under Pozechbunia’s influence. His literature creation psychology inherited and developed Pozechbunia’s theory. Using this theory, he studied language, thinking and literature creation psychology problems, and studied great Russian writers and poets’ creation and works from a psychological point of view. On the other hand, the emergence and development of psychology school of Russian literary theory was based on Cultural-Historical School. Since Cultural-Historical School focused more on the external contact of literature, it exposed its limitation day by day, it made Coolekovski had to open a new path and advanced a new theory that scholars should pay attention to writer’s personality and literature creation psychology. He absorbed the essence of Pozechbunia’s theory and overcome the shortcomings at the same time. Not only considering the "environment" and other external factors, but also considering the artist’s unique creative personality, temperament and other psychological characteristics, so he surpassed the history and culture school in some extent. Chapter two studied the historical context of Coolekovski’s literature creation psychology. In mid and late 19th century, with rapid development of natural sciences, especially emergence of modern psychology, literature creation psychology gradually became a specialized subject, and soon achieved some results. Historically, the tendency of literacture towards literature psychology t is inevitable. We believe that this situation is due mainly to the following areas: First, literature and psychology have a natural contact; Second, from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, literary and artistic figures transferred to the mental spiritual; Third, humanism trend of thought outstood human subject of human, the life existence of human, that constitutes another subject to connect literary theory and psychology. Additionally, the Russian literature theory research in scientific and systematic sense began in mid-19th century when a large number of academicians concentrated on different fields of literature theory research. They obtained a number of world effect academic achievements in a short period, and formed the important academic shool tradition of Russian literature theory. The most influential Academisms are Myth School, Cultural-Historical School, Historical Poetics School and psychology school. On the whole, each of them has its own characteristics and limitations in the methodology. But they are not separate, and showing some kind of integrated and cross-impact situation. Coolekovski’s literature creation psychology was bred and developed in such a historical context.Chapter three analyzed the basic category of Coolekovski’s literature creation psychology. Coolekovski always had a preference of the basic categories that could cover the entire art creation world, which is hard to describe. The thesis deeply studied the five basic categories as word dissertation on the prose and poetry-style-type words, daily thinking and artistic thinking, observation art and experimental art, the subjective and objective creative writing, self-centered and non-self-centered theories, and further pointed out their features, functions, and the status that it sit in the system of the literature creation psychology. Through the study of words itself, Coolekovski thought that the modern language could be divided into two types: the prose-style words and poetry-style words. He pointed out the art elements of all languages. He discovered that art features and art practices in the art thinking and daily thinking have many similarities. Between the two it exists very close psychological similarities. He tried to use the scientific methodology in the field of literature and art and divided the art into observation art and experimental art, so as to strengthen the scientific extent of the activities of the human soul. He studied the relationship between thinking, feeling and I and finally got the famous proposition of self-centered and non-self-centered, which became a unique formulation in the world’s literary and artistic theory of psychology. These categories are Coolekovski’s main research fruits.Chapter four mainly studied the structure of Coolekovski’s literature creation psychology. Without a right recognition to the important issues of literature creation psychology, it will have a profound impact on the entire research of literature creation psychology. Under the guidance of question awareness and combined with Coolekovski’s theory and criticism practice, the thesis summed up some important questions that he’d like to solve. To the entire literature creation psychology, the questions what he wanted to solve are limited, but these are important and can inspire us to think about more and deeper propositions of literature creation psychology from different angles. Coolekovski thought that the essence of art creating was to interpretate the infinite possibility. He regarded the basic psychological characteristics as an infinite process, it is not completed, but a never-ending. He clearly recognized that the unconscious in the literary creation had the most important meaning, it signified the deepen understanding of the unconscious. His analyze to Gogol’s work "the Russia what we see from the charming beauty afar"-contained a profound creation theory of psychology: aesthetics distance is an indispensable psychological condition of literary creation. He attributed the creative freedom to the writer’s inner freedom. Viewing from the creative psychology angle, this freedom is the best creative mood that exceeded from all sorts of inside and outside restrains. In Coolekovski’s opinion, the practice of social value among the human kind various values is the first and most important. He also think that the literature is the substitute compensation of psychology of the social value that unable to realized. Chapter five investigated the critical practice of Coolekovski’s literature creation psychology. The dissertation studied Coolekovski’s theory from the angle of art critic practice. We think that Coolekovski’s literature creative psychology not only focused on theory construction, but also on art critic practice. Coolekovski’s thought could be divided into two phases. In the earlier stage, It mainly focused on microcreation psychology—analysis of Individual character psychology. When he analyzed the psychology of the classical writer’s works, it interfered with three spheres- writer, works and reader. It added abundant perceptual materials and laid a good foundation for the scholars to further explore the analytic mode of literature psychology. It is unique that using the psychological method to criticize the author and works and then revealing the complex psychological connotations of art creation. But its limitation is also prominent. Coolekovski was conscious of that at his later stage of academic activities. He combined organically the psychology methods and methods of history and culture of the school and promoted the concept of psycho-social types, researched the process of literary history as an alternative psychology type process and social change. In the History of the Russian Intellectuals, social psychology is the most eye-catching. By analyzing the typical image of the spiritual life such as superfluous people of the Russian literature, Coolekovski reflected the Russian intellectuals’ spirit process at the turning point of the 19th century from the history and culture view. Coolekovski’s research did not drastically cut out the tie of history and culture, greatly exceeded the European and American contemporary art theory, have a very high academic value.The last chapter is concluding remarks. It summarized the characteristics, significance and limitations of Coolekovski’s literature creative psychology. Coolekovski’s theory had constantly presented its prominent characteristics in the revising and adjustment: the combination of empirical research with literature study; the science thought of combination of theory construction and practice examine; the overall awareness of combination of the macro-and-micro-depth grasp; the divided academic attitude of academic research and social passion. Generally, Coolekovski’s theory has absolute active meaning for solving the problem of the creative psychology at that time, it is a necessary link that the literature creative psychology become mature and perfect, some of the arguments still have scientific value. Of course, not all of his theoretical viewpoints have maintained their value and unquestionable truth. Because his theory system are relatively scattered and have many miscellaneous clues, his exposition is self-contradicted sometimes. We should have a clear recognition and critical attitude to shortcomings, limitations and problems of his theory. In short, whether the value of Coolekovski’s thought itself or his spirit as a scholar, they are all worthy of our attention and learning from them.China’s literary psychological research has not fully carried out well. We should construct and develop the modern literary psychology. It is necessary to be based on the nation’s deep roots and current practice of cultural creation, and must pay attention to the outside horizontal expansion of culture. We must equally treat to "other" culture. Among the exotic literary psychology resources, Russian’s experiences and lessons are the most worthy of our careful summing up. In spite of Coolekovski’s literature creation psychology can not be regarded as a system theory and his point of view that shining light of intelligence seemed to be somewhat fragmented and pieces, but it still left a lot of thinking clues for digging. Restoring Coolekovski’s theory is not our ultimate goal, but we hope to use it as a reference to examine our own tradition of literary psychology. The author believes that the study of Coolekovski’s literature creation theory can be achieved the effect of stones from other hills may serve to polish jade.更多还原