【作者】 秦咏梅；

【导师】 余三定；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 文学审美本质论是20世纪80年代在我国出现的一种新的文学本质观,其产生于新时期主流意识形态淡出和审美本质化开始反思的时期。它从一个不同于以往的角度即审美的角度出发来解析文学的本质,力求把文学的审美属性与意识形态属性结合在一起,提出文学的本质是“审美意识形态”,文学审美本质论是新时期文艺理论发展的重要新成果。第一章,新时期文学审美本质论产生的社会历史背景。新时期之初,政治对文学粗暴干预的结束给文学的发展创造了相对宽松的社会环境,使文学理论界确立了“文学是人学”的命题。同时,在西方文艺美学、苏联“审美学派”理论及我国自古而来的审美体验传统等理论语境的熏陶下,文学审美本质论应运而生。第二章,新时期文学审美本质论提出的过程及提出的重要意义。文学审美本质论并非一人一时提出来的,首先是童庆炳先生提出文学的基本特征是审美,接着钱中文先生在此基础上于1984年正式提出文学的本质是“审美意识形态”,并对其内涵进行了分析。文学审美本质论的提出对新时期文艺理论研究的意义是巨大的,它是一代学人集体理论创新的结晶,较之“文艺为政治服务”的口号更能体现文艺自身的发展规律。第三章,审美本质论理论厚度的增强和审美本质论进入文学理论教材,这两个方面显示了新时期文学审美本质论的初步成熟。在20世纪80年代末,文学审美本质论者继续对文学的审美特征作了进一步地阐述,又对80年代另一重要的学说“审美反映说”进行了深入的阐释,丰富了审美本质论的理论内涵。文学审美本质论从80年代进入一本文学理论教材到90年代进入多本文学理论教材,其理论本身的权威性和普遍性在不断增强。第四章,文学审美本质论在遭遇并应对全面质疑的过程中继续走向深化。从20世纪90年代末开始,文学审美本质论就遭到了零星的批评。进入到新世纪,则遭到了以董学文、陆贵山为代表的多位学者的质疑。在这全面质疑声中,质疑者的主要观点表现在,认为不能将文学的本质规定为“意识形态”、不能用“审美”涵盖文学所有的本质、“审美意识形态”是“审美”和“意识形态”的简单相加等方面。钱中文、童庆炳、王元骧等审美本质论者积极应对这些质疑,他们重申了“审美意识形态”的逻辑起点是审美意识、“审美”具有巨大的溶解力、“审美意识形态”是一个完整的理论等观点,使其理论观点在应对质疑中继续深化。第五章,对新时期文学审美本质论进行总体分析评价,对其发展前景进行展望。文学审美本质论,站在马克思主义立场上将文学的审美属性与意识形态属性结合在一起,强调“审美”与“意识形态”的融合,在学理上是具有一定的开创性与独创性的。但其理论本身对审美的过度强调及理论内部结构的松散性,也是不能忽视的缺点。在当前大众文化泛滥、文化研究不断扩张的文化语境中,文学审美本质论应该吸取新的理论主张,秉持一种宏观、开放、多维的态度与方法,才能有更好的发展前景。更多还原

【Abstract】 The essence of the literature is a new concept of the nature of literature emerging in China in 1980s when the mainstream of ideology in the new era had faded and the aesthetic nature began to reflect.The essence of the literature,aesthetic ideology, poposed from aesthetic view combine literary aesthetic properties with the ideology of property together best illustrates the development of new literary theory.Chapter one discusses the social and historical backgrounds of the nature of Literary Aesthetic in the new era. At the beginning of the new era, the end of the interference of the gross political on the literature created a relatively relaxed political environment for the literature in which the literary circles established the proposition---"literature is the study of human". Meanwhile, the aesthetic nature of literature came into being under the influences of the west literary aesthetics, the theory of the schools of aesthetic in Russia and the theoretical context of the aesthetic experience tradition.Chapter two is dedicated to the course and significance of the proposal. Nature of Literary Aesthetics was not proposed by one man, Tong Qingbing first proposed that aesthetic is the basic feature of literature. Based on it, Qian Zhongwen put forward the essence of the literature should be aesthetic ideology and analyzed its connotation.It is the crystallization of the collective theory of innovation from the generation of scholars. Compared with the slogan "art for politics" and can better reflect its own development regulation of art.Chapter three aims to analyze the maturity of the aestheic essence from the enhancement of the aesthetic theory and its access to the textbook.In the late 80s, the nature of literary aesthetic did not only continue to elaborate the aesthetic features of literature, but also make further interpretation of another theory in the 80s "aesthetic reflects" which enriched the aesthetic essence. Aesthetic Essence was put into one theoretical textbook in the 80s and then into several in the 90s during which its authority and universality of the theory is constantly enhanced.Chapter four makes a further study when the nature or aesthetic are questioned.From 1990s, the aesthetic nature of literature had been subjected to sporadic criticism. Entering into the new century, it had been questioned by many representative scholars such as Dong Xuewen and Lu Guishan. Voices of doubt in this round, the main idea they questioned embodied mainly in the followings:the nature of literature can not be defined as "ideology", can not use the "aesthetic" to cover the essence of all literature, "aesthetic ideology" is the simple sum of "aesthetic" and "consciousness Form". Qian Zhongwen, Dong Qingbing, Wang Xiang and other scholars who supported this theory dealt with these questions positively. They reiterated that the logical standing point of the "aesthetic ideology" was aesthetic sense."aesthetic" had enormous power of dissolving, and the "aesthetic ideology" was a complete theory and so on, which continued to deepen the theory in depth.更多还原