【作者】 苏美妮；

【导师】 宋剑华；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2009， 博士

【副题名】论中国现代作家的身份困惑与20世纪中国现代文学的几个悖论性问题

【摘要】 本文以现代作家的身份困惑为研究切入点,通过对现代作家身份困惑的表征的概括与描述,揭示现代作家群体内在的人格矛盾,并探讨作家的身份困惑与现代文学的“传统与现代”、“精英化与大众化”、“工具性与主体性”等悖论现象之间的关联。本文的研究重点是作家的身份困惑与现代文学上述悖论之间的联系以及对现代文学创作产生的影响。全文共分五个部分:绪论部分主要研究两个方面的内容:一是界定作为分析工具的“身份”的含义;二是梳理现代文学的“文学工具论”理论范式的形成,阐释其对现代作家的身份困惑和人格矛盾的影响。第一章主要论述现代作家“乡下人”与“都市人”的身份困惑对现代文学“启蒙现代性”的影响。分三部分进行讨论:首先对“乡村”、“城镇”、“都市”、“乡下人”、“城镇人”、“都市人”“传统”“现代”、“现代性”九个概念进行界定,然后从“弃医从文”与“现代文明”的二律背反、“乡土批判”与“精神返乡”的二元对立、“故园梦破”与“都市批判”的双重困惑三个方面,结合对鲁迅等人的“五四乡土小说”、沈从文、萧乾等人的“京派乡土小说”、“京派都市小说”、蒋光慈、丁玲等人的“左翼乡土小说”、“左翼都市小说”、穆时英、施蛰存等人的“新感觉派小说”的文本分析,来论证现代作家“乡下人”与“都市人”的文化身份困惑与这些悖论性的文学现象之间的关联。说明正是由于现代作家们自身的文化身份困惑导致了现代文学思想启蒙目标的虚妄以及文学精神在现代与传统之间摇摆的特点。第二章主要论述现代作家由启蒙者到被启蒙者的身份转换与现代文学的精英化向大众化转换之间的联系。分三部分进行讨论:第一部分分为两个层次:第一层次主要以“五四”、“左翼”作家作品为研究对象,通过比较西方启蒙精神与“五四”启蒙精神的差异,以及对鲁迅、丁玲等的启蒙题材作品的分析解读,揭示“五四”启蒙必然失败的原因。认为五四作家群体对西方启蒙的误读和自身没有掌握社会的统治权导致了思想启蒙的失败。第二层次主要以“大革命”失败后丁玲、巴金、茅盾等人的“革命+恋爱”题材作品为研究对象,通过对其叙事类型的概括与分析,揭示其中所蕴含的“革命话语”与“自由话语”的矛盾,展现作家们在从“新青年”到“革命者”的身份转换中内在的人格矛盾。认为现代作家群体对“革命”的“去欲望化”与“道德化”理解,实际上在某种程度上意味着“五四知识分子”对自身启蒙者身份的质疑与否定。第二个部分主要以左翼文学和建国后的“红色经典”为研究对象,通过对文本的分析研究,揭示现代革命作家在知识分子与工农大众之间的身份归属困境以及他们与工农大众的内在隔阂,认为“知识分子工人化”与“农民政治精英化”是知识分子思想改造语境中现代文学两种重要的身份置换模式,当“凤凰涅磐”式的灵与肉俱焚的牺牲之路被想象为知识分子工人化的绝对道路时,显现的是集体主义意识形态对知识分子群体的无形操纵。第三部分主要论述现代作家的知识分子身份与工农的内在隔阂导致了现代文学的发展在精英化言说与大众化要求之间相冲突的特点。通过对五四的“白话文”与平民文学的精英化本质、三四十年代“大众文学”口号的内在悖论的分析,认为“大众化”不仅在概念上存在错位,而且从大众欣赏和大众创造两个方面都存在实践上的难度,它体现的是具体历史语境中知识分子对工农的崇拜心理。而左翼的“文学大众化”在本质上是为了实现对知识分子的工农化改造,是主流艺术或官方艺术运用艺术变革达到意识形态变革的斗争策略。第三章主要论述现代作家在“时代战士”与“浪漫诗人”之间的身分迷失导致了现代文学工具性与主体性的矛盾。分两部分讨论:第一部分通过对丁玲、何其芳、艾青等“延安知识分子”从“文人”到“战士”的身份转换中的心路历程的描述,以及对建国后郭沫若、茅盾、曹禺、丁玲等从“体制外”到“体制内”的角色转换中人格矛盾的分析,揭示现代作家的“文人”与“战士”的身份悖论与文学主体性弱化之间的关联。第二个部分主要通过对丁玲延安十年的创作、王实味、胡风、舒芜、萧也牧等人的对主流意识形态规约的精神突围现象的研究,揭示现代文学发展中个性话语与统一话语之间的悲剧冲突。结语部分则试图通过对文学启蒙运动中集体意识对个体意识的驱逐的进一步分析,探讨启蒙终成未竟之业的主要原因。论文认为:正是片面强化对知识分子的资产阶级意识的改造,忽视了对知识分子和工农的小生产者意识(封建意识)的改造,以及现代文学的“工具”命运,导致了文学启蒙未能抵达向内思索的现代性深度。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation takes the modern writer’s identity confusion as the starting point to go on the investigation and research, and aims to reveal the intrinsic personality contradiction of the modern writers through the summarization and description of the characteristics of their identity confusion. Furthermore, it also discusses the relationship between the writer’s identity confusion and the paradoxical problems of "the traditional and the modern", "the outstanding and the popular", "the instrumental and the independent" in modern literature, which is the research focus of this disertation.The disertation is divided into five parts:The introduction part of this paper mainly studies two aspects: First, it defines the meaning of the "identity" as an analysizing tool; then, it analyzes the development of "the literature tool theory" in modern literature and explains its influences on modern writer’s identity confusion and personality contradiction.Chapter 1 mainly discusses how the identity confusion of modern writers, between "the peasant" and "the urbanite", influences the "enlightening nature" of modern literature. It is divided into three parts. Firstly, it defines nine important concepts: "the village", "the town" , "the city", "the peasant", "the small town people", "the urbanite" , "the tradition", "the modern age", and "the modernity". Then, in order to prove the connection between those paradoxical literature phenomena and the modern writer’s cultural identity confusion between "the peasant" and "the urbanite", the author discusses the three paradoxs between Lu Xun’s "dropping surgical scapel for writing pen" and his "pursuing modern civilization", "criticizing to the local" and "returning of the spirit", "the broken dream of returning to the native place" and "the criticism of the city". She also combines the text analysis of Lu Xun’s"May 4th Local Fiction", Shen Congwen and Xiao Qian’s "Pastoral Novel" and "City Novel" of the Beijing School", Jiang Guang Ci. and Ding Ling’s "Left-wing Local Novels" and "Left-wing City Novels", and Mu Shiying, Shi Zhecun’s "New-sensation Novels" in the discussion. The analysis shows that it was the cultural identity confusion of the modern writers that resulted in the emptiness feature of the initial enlightening purpose of the modern literature, and the swinging of the literature spirit between the modern and the traditional.Chapter 2 mainly discusses the connection between the modern writers’ role-shifting from the initiator to "being initiated", and the transformation of modern literature from "the outstanding" to "the popular". It was divided into three parts. Two levels are discussed in the first part. In the first level, it sets the writings of "The May Fourth writers" and the "Left-wing writers" as the research objects, and compares the differences between the Western Enlightenment Spirit and "The May Fourth Enlightenment" spirit, through analyzing the enlightenment writings of Lu Xun and Ding Ling, to hint the real reason of the doomed failure of "The May Fourth" enlightenment movement. The author holds that it was the "May Fourth" writers’ misreading of the westen Enlightenment writings and their failure to seize the reins of government that led to the failure of the enlightenment. The research object of the second level is the "Revolution and Love" novels after the failure of "the Great Revolution" of Ding Ling, Ba Jin and Mao Dun. Through summarizing and analyzing their narrative styles, the author aims to reveal the contradiction between the "revolutionary discourse" and the "freedom discourse" in their writings, and to show the intrinsic personality conflict of those writers in their role-shifting process from "the New Youth" to "the revolutionary". The author believes that the modern writers’ understanding of the "asceticism" and "moralism" actually means the criticism of the "the revolutionary discourse" to "the May Fourth discourse", and the doubt and denial of "the May Fourth" intellectuals to their own identy as enlightenors. The second part sets the Left-Wing literature and "the Red Classics" after the founding of the People’s Republic as the research obects, aiming to reveal the modern revolutionary writers’ dilemma of their identity belongings between the intellectuals and the broad masses of workers and peasants, together with the barriers between them. The author holds that "turning intellectuals into workers" and "turning peasants into political leaders" are two important identity-switching modes of modern literature in the context of "ideological remolding of the intellectuals". When the spirit and physical sacrifice of the intellectuals , just like the Rise of the Phoenix, were imagined as the only way in the movement of "turning intellectuals into workers", the invisible manipulation of the collectivism ideology to the intellectuals and the intellectuals’ eager for quick success in the revolution were revealed. The third part mainly analyzes that, it was the barrier between the modern writers’ intellectual identity and the workers / peasants that resulted in the conflict between the "outstanding discourse" and "the popular" requirement in the development of the modern literature. Through the analysis of the paradox between the "outstanding" nature of the vernacular writings in the May Fourth movement and "the literature for the common people", and the slogan of "Popular Literature" in 1930s and 1940s, the author believes that the definition of "popularization" has ont only an dislocation in the concept, but also many practical difficulties in the literature appreciation and creation of the mass. It reflects the worship of the intellectuals to the workers and peasants in a special historical context. While the deeds of "literature popularization" of the Left-wing could be treated as a means to turn the intellectuals into workers or peasants, which was an strategy of the mainstream art or the official art trying to realize the ideology transformation through art transformation.Chapter 3 mainly discusses the conflict between "the instrumental" and "the independent" nature of modern literature, which was caused by the modern wriers’ identity confusion between "the fighter of the age" and "the romantic poet". It was divided into two parts. The first part aims to reveal the connection between the modern writers’ paradoxical identity between "the writer" and "the fighter", and the weakening of the independent nature of modern literature , through the description of the soul journey of those "Yan’an intellectuals", such as Ding Ling, He Qifang, and Ai Qing in their transformation from "the writer " to "the fighter", and through the analysis of the pesonality contradiction of a group of people, such as: Guo Moruo, Mao Dun, Cao Yu, Ding Ling and so on in their transformation from "out the system" to"in the system". The seond part mainly aims to reveal the tragic conflicts between the "individuality words" and the "unification words" in the development of modern literature, through the research of Ding Ling’s ten-year writings in Yan’an, and the struggle of Wang Shiwei, Hu Feng, and Shu Wu to "break through the mainstream ideology".Through the further analyzing of the expelling of collectivism to individual consciousness, the conclusion of this paper tries to discuss the main reasons of the failure of the enlightenment. The author holds that, it was the one-sided emphasis on changing the intellectuals’ bourgeoisie consciousness, together with the neglect to the changing of the small-scale production consciousness (feudal consciousness) of the intellectuals, the workers and peasants, as well as the instrumental status of modern literature, that resulted in the failure of the literature modernization.更多还原