一体与异质

【作者】 陈宁；

【导师】 吴义勤；

【作者基本信息】 山东师范大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2011， 博士

【副题名】阶级论思维及其对十七年文学批评中异质理念的批判

【摘要】 “阶级论”的文学批评思维是建国后十七年(1949-1966)文学批评的主导模式。这一批评思维的产生是中国现代文学批评内部矛盾发展的必然产物——契合中国革命实际的“阶级论”思维最终取代了“五四”“人的文学”的“非逻辑性”和“非纲领性”;但同时,“阶级论”作为一种文学批评模式也具备一定的历史适用性、时效性等特点和局限。在对这一思维模式考察的基础上,本文从对“十七年”文学批评中异质理念的批判论争入手,分析“阶级论”思维对这一时期文学批评中异质理念的批判和整饬方式,进而呈现“十七年”文学批评和创作的最终走向,以揭示“阶级论”为主导的“十七年”文学批评思维的历史贡献、基本矛盾和教训启示。文章以文学批评的“阶级论”思维为主线,以它与“异质性”文学理念的具体关系为分析重点,深入探究“十七年”文学批判思维的内部逻辑,呈现“异质性”理念被批判、整合,最终走向被“阶级论”所同化的历史命运,以求展示出这一时段文学批评的复杂性、具体性和矛盾性。论文共包括绪论、正文和结语三部分,正文共分为五章。第一章主要综述“十七年”文学批评的批判机制——“阶级论”批评思维形成的历史背景、必然性及历史局限性。以“人的文学”为例可知,“五四”以来的现代文学批评充满了的“非逻辑性”和“非纲领性”,既不具备统一人心的严密的方法论基础和纲领性质,又没有真正可以付诸实践的物质土壤和人性要求;在当时艰难的民族解放道路中,现代文学批评的这一特点使得它必然被一种高度集中、高度组织化的文学批评纲领所代替,而“阶级论”的批评体系恰好满足了这种需要。但同时,“阶级论”的阐释体系也具有明显的局限性,它的“唯阶级论”思想、阶级斗争为纲的线性历史观,以及强烈的排斥机制,都会给文学艺术的特殊性造成伤害。在历史车轮的惯性作用下,“阶级论”的批评机制延伸到了建国后,并迅速成为文学批评的主导标准。第二章主要探讨“十七年”文学批评的准绳——“阶级论”的阐释体系的具体内涵及表现方式。首先,无产阶级立场和世界观是“阶级论”的核心,这决定了文学批评必须从一定的阶级立场出发,看待和评价文学创作,其观点必须符合基本的无产阶级规范;其次,文学批评理念必须分清阶级界限,以确保革命立场的坚定性和纯洁性,这是“阶级论”的保障。这一特点使得阶级性成为作家进行创作的先行理念,进而成为文学的“基本属性”;再次,写新人物、英雄人物等阶级样板,是“阶级论”的文学使命。阶级样板的刻画直接关系到创作者如何体现自己的立场和信仰的问题,它渗透着创作者的政治倾向和阶级立场,是体现一个阶级的政治理想和先进性的必然选择;最后,工具论和武器论是“阶级论”的文学功能,这使得文学创作更多体现在为哪一个阶级服务上。以上这几点都是“阶级论”行使其批判和整饬作用的准绳和底限。第三章主要论述了“十七年”时期溢出“阶级论”规约的“异质性”的文学理念,其中包括人性论、真实论、自由论三大阐释体系。在“人性论”的阐释体系中,巴人、王淑明、徐懋庸等人宣扬“人类共性”的文学理念,因而模糊了人性的阶级界限;邵荃麟、胡风等人尊重人性的复杂性,因而干扰了革命阶级的纯洁性;陈伯吹、王愚等人的理念尊重人的个性和“这一个”的独特性,并执着于探索人类心灵的秘密,因而以个性掩盖了阶级共性;钱谷融以其人道主义的文学标尺排斥了阶级论的文学规范,严重遮蔽了文学批评的主流标准。在“真实论”的阐释体系中,秦兆阳、陈涌、冯雪峰、刘绍棠、黄秋耘等人倡导以作家主体直面客观真实和现实矛盾,从而使得“真实”获得了超阶级的属性;阿垅、李何林等人以“真实”作为评价标准,以求沟通并解决艺术与政治之间的矛盾,却反而混淆了政治与艺术的主次地位,取消了“政治标准第一”的话语基础。在“自由论”的阐释体系中,胡风、蒋孔阳、冯雪峰等人重视作家的主观体验,从而摒弃了阶级性的先验立场;王西彦等人尊崇作家的创作个性和天赋,却忽视了创作的阶级共性;胡风、石天河、黄药眠、王若望等人公开质疑先验世界观对创作的决定作用,从而干扰了阶级论思维对创作立场的统一。以上三类阐释体系从不同的方面影响了阶级论思维的正常运作,因而受到了广泛的批判。第四章阐述了部分批评家为抵制“极左”思维,进而对阶级论理念进行了不同程度的弥补与调和。这些调和主要汲取了各种“异质性”因素中的有益成分,但却无法从根本上缓和“一体”与“异质”之间的根本矛盾。在阶级论与人性论的整合中,萧殷、张光年、林默涵等人对阶级性与人物个性进行了不同方面的整合,李希凡对阶级性和人情进行了整合,但这些调和方式都使得人性成为阶级性的附庸;在阶级论与真实论的整合中,唐弢等人主张实现生活真实、感情真实与正确思想的渗透交织;钟惦棐等人主张依据主题思想来选择艺术上所需要的真实;茅盾等人主张以阶级倾向性来判定特定主题下的历史真实性,但这些“真实性”的理念却必须在先验立场的约束下成立;在阶级论与自由论的整合中,丁玲等人倡导到群众中去落户,在阶级生活中培养创作体验;侯金镜倡导在共同的政治标准下,对不同作家作具体的分析,以实现统一世界观之下选材的自由,但这些创作自由必须控制在创作的阶级规范内。第五章论述了“十七年”文学批评的发展方向,也即是“阶级论”纯化自身并最终走向极端化的发展趋势,这种趋势体现在种种“异质性”因素对“阶级论”思维的绝对转化。在人性论向阶级论的转化中,阶级论通过不断的批判整合,最终实现了对人性进行严格的阶级划分,纯化人性并凸出人的阶级标志;在真实论向阶级论的转化中,现实生活被绝对的阶级立场所控制,这突出表现在现实主义的“新旧”之分和以阶级斗争为纲反映现实上;在自由论向阶级论的转化中,“写重大题材”获得了绝对优势的地位,创作个性也归于阶级性。在这种转化的历程中,阶级论实现了自身的纯粹化,却在绝对排斥“异质”的过程中孕育了颠覆自身的因素。最终,文革文学批评实现了阶级论的纯粹化,它使得“人”的塑造样板化并凝固为一种两极模式;同时,它也实现了政治性与真实性的完全一致,阶级立场与作家创作立场的绝对一致。总的来说,“阶级论”思维主导了“十七年”文学批评和批判的总体模式,它的存在有利也有弊。结语总结了“阶级论”在实现文学创作中无产阶级理想与信仰的统一、凝聚阶级力量的历史贡献;同时阐述了阶级论的文学规范与文学创作情感的普遍性丰富性、现实生活多面性、作家创作体验个人性等方面的基本矛盾;论文最后总结了“十七年”文学批评的历史教训,即文学批评的主导机制应符合基本的艺术创作规律和现实发展的规律,同时,文学批评秩序与批判性机制应时时警醒自身的局限性与遮蔽性,只有这样,文学批评才会时时更新血液,焕发自身的活力。更多还原

【Abstract】 The "class theory" was the dominant mode of literary criticism seventeen years after the state foundation (1949-1966). The emergence of this kind of thought was the inevitable result of the internal contradictions between the literary criticism in China—which fitted the reality of Chinese revolution and finally replaced the "non-logic" and "non-programmatic" of the "May Fourth" "human literary"; meanwhile, as a kind of literary criticism, the "class theory" have the function of historical applicability, timeliness and limitations.Based on the study of this kind of thought, the paper start from the heterogeneous criticism in the "Seventeen Years" Literary Criticism, analyzes the criticizing and straightening way of the heterogeneous concept in the literary criticism in this period, and shows the ultimate trend of the literary criticism and creation of the "Seventeen Years", to show the historical contribution, basic contradiction, inspiration and lessons of the "Seventeen Years”literary criticism concept leading by the "Class theory". The paper sets the "Class theory" of the literary criticism as the main line, focuses on the analysis of the relationship between the heterogeneity" literature concept, studies the internal logic of the "Seventeen Years”literary criticism concept, and shows the historical fate of the concept that was criticized, integrated, and assimilated finally, for demonstrating the complexity, corporeality and contradiction of the literary criticism in this period. The paper includes introduction, body and conclusion, and the body is divided into five chapters.The first chapter mainly summarizes the Criticism mechanism of the "Seventeen Years" Literary Criticism—the historical background, necessity and historical limitations of the formation of the "class theory" critical thought. With the“human literary”, we can find that since the“May Fourth Movement", the modern literary criticism has been full of "non-logic" and "non-programmatic" nature, which means it has no methodology and program basis to unify people, but also no material and human requirements for practice; in the difficult path of national liberation at that time, the characteristic of modern literary criticism leading it would bound be replaced by a kind of highly concentrated and organized literary criticism program, while the critical system of the "class theory" just fit this need. Meanwhile, the interpretation system of the "class theory" also has limitations, the linear historical view of with "class only theory" thought, and class struggle program, and the strong rejection mechanism all gave injury to the specialty of literature. Under the inertia effects of the history wheel, the criticism mechanism of the "class theory" has extended to the period after the state foundation, and become the dominant standard of literary criticism quickly.The second chapter mainly discusses the criterion of the "Seventeen Years" literary criticism—the concrete content and expressions ways of the "class theory" interpretation system. First of all, the position and view of the proletariats is the core of the "class theory", this determines the literary criticism must start from certain class position to view and evaluate literature, and its views must fit the standard of the proletariats; secondly, the concept of literary creation must distinguish the class boundaries, to ensure the firmness and purity of the revolution which is the guarantee of the "class theory". This feature makes the class character be the first ideas of writers, and becomes the "basic property" of literature; then, the writing of new characters, heroes and other class models is the literary mission of the "class theory". The depiction of the class model relates to the problems of the creator’s position and devotion, it permeates their political orientation and class position, and it is the inevitable choice of the of political ideals and advancement of one class; finally, the tools, and arms theory is the literary function of the "class theory", which makes the literature creation reflect more on serving which class. The above-mentioned points are the criterion and the bottom line of the "class theory" to conduct its criticism and rectification.The third chapter mainly discusses the "heterogeneity" literary concept covenanted by the "class theory" overflowed in the "Seventeen Years" period, and it includes three interpretation systems of human nature theory, truth theory, and freedom theory. In the interpretation system of“human nature theory”, the "common humanity" creative ideas promoted by Ba Ren, Wang Shuming, and Xu Maoyong, et al, blurred the class boundaries of humanity; SHAO Quan-lin, and Hu Feng et al respected the human complexity thus interfered the purity of the revolutionary class; Chen Bochui, and Wang Yu et al respected the human personality and the unique of“this one”, and explored the secrets of human mind, so the personality concealed the common character of class; Qian Gurong excluded the creation specifications of class with his humanitarian literature scale, and sheltered the mainstream standards of literary criticism strictly. In the interpretation systems of“truth theory”, Qin Zhaoyang, Chen Yong, Feng Xuefeng, Liu Shaotang, Huang Qiuyun et al advocated to face the objective truth and reality conflict with the subject of writer, to let the“truth”gain super-class property; A Long, Li Helin et al used“truth”as the evaluation criteria, to solve the conflicts between art and politics but confused the primary and secondary status of politics and art instead, and thus canceled the word basis of "political criteria first". In the interpretation systems of“freedom theory”, Hu Feng, Jiang Kongyan, and Feng Xuefeng et al valued the subjective experience of writers, and abandoned the prior position of the class nature; Wang Xiyan et al respected writers’creative personality and talent, but ignored the common nature of class; Hu Feng, Shi Tianhe, Huang Yaomian, and Wang Ruowang et al questioned the decisive role of the transcendental world view to creation, and thus interfered the class theory concept’s unity to creation. The above-mentioned interpretation systems affected the normal operation of“class theory”thought in different aspects, and thus were criticized widely.The fourth chapter describes some of the critics conducted some degree of making up and reconciling to the“class theory”concept to resist the "extreme leftist" thought. These reconciling mainly absorbed various useful "heterogeneity" factor, but can not ease the fundamental contradiction between“unity”and "heterogeneity". In the integration of the class theory and human nature, Xiao yin, Zhang Guangniang, Lin Mohan et al conducted various degrees of integration between the class nature and personalities, Li Xifan also did so, but these ways of reconciling made personalities become the client of class nature; in the integration of class nature theory and truth theory, Tang Tao et al stood for the infiltration of real life, real emotions and correct ideology; Zhong Dianfei et al claimed to choose the reality needed by art based on the thematic thoughts; Mao Dun et al clainmed to use class tendentiousness to determine the historical authenticity under certain topic, but these "reality" concepts must be established under the constraints of the priori position; in the integration of class theory and freedom theory, Ding Ling et al advocated to settle in people, and cultivated creative experiences in the class life; Hou Jinjing advocated to analyze concretely to different writers under common political standard to realize the freedom under the unified world view, but these creative freedom must be controlled in the norm of class.The fifth chapter discusses the developing trend of the "Seventeen Years" literary criticism, which means the trend of the“class theory”purified itself and stepped toward extreme. This trend reflected in various "heterogeneity" factor changing the“class theory”thoughts. In the transformation of human nature to the“class theory”, the“class theory”realized the class division to humanity ultimately, purified humanity and highlighted the class marks; in the transformation of the truth theory to the class theory, the real life was controlled by the absolute class position, which reflected strongly on the distinction between“new and old”realism, and the reality of with the class struggle as the program; in the transformation of the freedom theory to the class theory,“writing important theme”gained dominant position, and the creative personality was attributed to class character. In this kind of transformation process, the class theory realized self-purification, but gave birth to the subversion factors in the process of exclusion "heterogeneous". Finally, theory of pure class realized by the cultural revolution literature criticism. It makes the shape of "person" solidificated and generalized as a polar mode; At the same time, it also realized the political and the authenticity consistent completely, standpoint of class and writers’creation standpoint absolute unanimityIn summary, the“class theory”thought led the overall model of the "Seventeen Years" literary criticism and Criticism, and it had advantages and disadvantages in itself. The conclusion summarizes the historical contribution of the“class theory”in the unity of proletariat’s thoughts and beliefs, and cohesion of class power in the real literary creation; meanwhile, it discusses the basic contradictions among the literary norms, the universal and richness of literary creation emotion, the multi-faceted nature of real life, and the experienced humanity of writers in creation and other aspects; the paper summarizes the historical lessons of the "Seventeen Years" literary criticism that is the dominant mechanism of it should meet the basic laws of artistic creation and the reality development. Meanwhile, the order of literary criticism and critical mechanism should be alert for their own limitations and shelters, only by doing this, can the literary criticism renew blood and shine vitality.更多还原