【作者】 葛卉；

【导师】 方克强；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本文尝试对西方话语权力在90年代以来中国文论中的体现加以考察与反思，而贯穿于这一考察与反思的核心，则是话语权力的民族向度问题。全文除绪论和结语之外，共由四章组成。第一章至第三章主要是对话语权力理论与中国90年代以来文论有关问题的阐释性研究。第一章对话语权力的西方社会历史、思想背景作理论上的梳理，对马克思主义“权力观”、尼采的“权力意志”、福柯的“话语权力”理论、赛义德的“民族话语权力”思想进行一个简短的历史回顾。第二章考察90年代以来中国文论对于话语权力理论的接受及其限度。在汉语语境中，话语权力分别作为理论策略、方法论与问题域三种方式出现。中国学者在接受过程中，普遍具有了话语权力意识，并自发的用其发现自身的问题。第三章按照发生时间的先后对“中华性”、“失语症”、“日常生活审美化”三个命题的论争进行话语权力视角的考察与反思。通过考察，可以发现这些论争的核心是“学科的话语权力”、“话语权力的意识形态化”、“民族话语中心意识”。论争的局限也往往止步于“中西”二元对立的思维模式中。第四章试图在话语权力“本土化”的引导下对西方话语权力理论自身及其在中国的应用进行反思，并在反思中凸现出“中国文论话语”建设的可能。西方话语权力把话语揭示为权力的关系，“权力化”构成了话语权力理论的限度。“权力化”包含两层意思：其一是权力的“普适化”，其二是权力的“内在化”。话语权力的限度正是在于将权力本体化为一切现象的起源，但又将主体泯灭在权力构成之中，从而消解了自我阐释的可能性。同样，这种限度也体现在中国“本土化”化了的“话语权力”应用当中。在中国，对于“民族”身份的认同反而使得话语权力与主流意识形态谋和在一起，但这种身份的建构是具有“排他性”的。它表现在对西方话语的压制与对本国话语清理过程的同时性上。因此，我们从两个方面来思考建设中国文论话语的可能性。第一，在“民族”这个向度上摒弃单一的批判性思维，将古代文论话语建设与西方文论“本土化”视作中国话语建设的一体化。第二，中国文论需要的是一个可以对话的场域，但这绝不是以对西方文化做出正负价值评判的基础上建立的场域。摆脱民族的视域局限，使得对话成为一种现实可能，而这也才是中国文论走出自身限度的契机。更多还原

【Abstract】 This article tried to survey and introspect the manifestation of the West’s power of discourse in Chinese literature theory from the 1990’s. The core through this survey and introspection is the question about the words authority’s nationality. The paper is composed of four chapters including introduction and the conclusion.The content of Chapter one, Chapter two and Chapter three are to study the interpretation about the theory of the power of discourse and some questions of Chinese literature theory from the 1990’s. The first chapter is to manifest the power of discourse’s background from the west world’s social history and thoughts in theory. And we retrospect the Marxism’s viewpoint of the power, Nietzsche’s "power will", Foucault’s theory about the power of discourse, Said’s "the national power of discourse" in brief. The second chapter is to inspect the Chinese literature theory’s acceptance and limitation from 1990’s about the power of discourse. In Chinese contextual environment, the power of discourse is appeared in three ways—the theory strategy, the methodology and the question territory. The Chinese scholars generally had the consciousnesses about the power of discourse and discovered their own questions with it spontaneously during the process of acceptance. The third chapter is to survey and introspect the three statements — "the Chinese character", "aphasia", "appreciate daily life aesthetically" according to the developing debate about the three statements .With the survey, we found the core in these debates is about "the power of discourse in subject", "the power of discourse ideologue", "the consciousness of central national discourse", and the debates are limited within the two opposite thinking pattern "Chinese and Western".The fourth chapter tried to retrospect theory of the West’s power of discourse itself and application about the theory in China under the guidance to the power of discourse localized. In the West’s power of discourse’s theory, the relation of the power proclaimed discourse, and "authorized" caused to limit the power of discourse’s theory. "Authorized" had two meaning: one is that the power is universalized and suited; the other is that the power became the inner. The limitation of the power of discourse which makes the power itself become the origin of all phenomenons and eliminates the subject in the power’s constitution caused to degrade or eliminate the self- interpretation possibility. In the power, we had no way to make the criteria criticize the object; therefore we could not explain criticism reasonably. At the same time, this limitation was also showed by putting the power of discourse localized in use. If the discourse /power is like the west theoretician’s weapon used to criticized social main current from the marginal, in the contrary, the "nation" identity brings the power of discourse together with main ideological form in China. But this identity has the character of "exclusiveness", and the "exclusiveness" is showed by the suppression to the West’s discourse and the clearance to the homeland’s discourse. We could construct discourse of Chinese literature theory in two sides. One side, Chinese literature theory should be getting rid of the unitary thinking form in criticizing from the aspect of "nation", and view discourse of the ancient Chinese literature theory. The other side, the Chinese literature theory does need a field in which the Chinese literature theory could dialogue with others, and this field should not only be based on valuable judgments on the possessive or the negative according to the West culture. It is to break away from the field limited in nationality and realizes dialogue which makes the Chinese literature theory be possible to surpass its limitation.更多还原