【作者】 黄晓武；

【导师】 罗钢；

【作者基本信息】 清华大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 胡风的主观论在胡风研究中一直是一个重要的问题,因为它体现了胡风文艺思想的特殊性,也是界定胡风文艺思想的重要依据。在不同时期,胡风对创作中作家主观作用的强调既有一致性,也存在差异,本文主要关注的是20世纪40年代胡风主观论问题的提出,试图通过对与之相关的各种思潮和论争的研究,在一个历史的框架内重新来理解这一问题。40年代胡风等人的“主观论”的提出是为了反对左翼阵营中的教条主义,在文艺上的直接对立面是姚雪垠、沙汀、茅盾等的文学创作,而在思想和学术上,另一个对立面则是郭沫若的儒墨研究,后者在现有的胡风研究中并没有得到足够的重视,而缺乏对这一问题的理解,我们就无法全面地认识“主观论”在反对教条主义问题上的某种限度。同时,“主观论”与“才子集团”的“生活态度论”之间也存在着复杂的关系,“主观论”的提出跟“生活态度论”有很大的关系,但在1948年的“香港批判”中,“才子集团”是批判“主观论”的主要力量。现有的胡风研究在涉及“生活态度论”时,往往局限于执守与背叛这样一个框架,没有对“生活态度论”和“香港批判”本身的观点和动力作更多的研究,而缺乏这种视角,我们就不能理解“才子集团”从“生活态度论”到“香港批判”的转变,也不能理解相对而言胡风的执守究竟意味着什么。“主观论”提倡主观和感性并不是偶然的,这跟民族主义等思潮诉诸人们的情感、用“民族的”标准对马克思主义的阶级的、国际主义的标准的挤压有关,是左翼知识分子自觉的理论努力,试图来发展马克思主义中主体性的、情感性的一面,是国统区马克思主义中国化努力中的组成部分。马恩关于意识形态方面的著作和鲁迅以来的本土革命文艺传统构成了他们的理论资源。没有这样一个背景,单纯从胡风文艺思想本身出发,我们就无法正确认识“感性对象”等概念在这一时期胡风思想中的出现,也无法对胡风文艺思想在中国马克思主义文艺传统中的地位作出合理评价。更多还原

【Abstract】 Hu Feng’s theory of Subject, which represents the features of his literary theory, and by which his literary theory is defined, has always been a key point in the studies of Hu Feng. Though Hu Feng paid attention to author’s subject in literary creation in his whole life, the emphasis varied in different times. What my dissertation concerns about is the appearance of problem of Subject in Hu Feng’s theory in 1940s. I try to re-explain its appearance in a historical context with the studies of various corresponding thoughts and debates.During the 1940s, Hu Feng and his Friends put forward the theory of Subject to battle against the dogmatism in the left wing, taking Yao Xueyin, Sha Ting and Mao Dun’s literary creation as dogmatic in one side, and Guo Moruo’s studies on the Confucianism and the Mohism in the other. But there is still little attention paid to the influence of Guo Moruo’s studies in the appearance of theory of Subject. Therefore, I think, without this perspective, we cannot properly understand Hu Feng’s theory of Subject in its limit in the problem of anti-dogmatism. Meanwhile, the theory of Subject has complex relationships with the theory of Attitude to Life put forward by Caizi Group. The theory of Subject got inspiration from the theory of Attitude to Life in its beginning. However, Caizi Group became the main force to criticize the theory of Subject in the Critique from Hong Kong in 1948. The research on the relationship between Hu Feng’s theory and the theory of Attitude to Life has always been carried out in a binary frame of faith and treachery, paying little attention to the main points of the theory of Attitude to Life, let alone its historical motivations. I think that such studies cannot fully explain the transition of Caizi Group’s theory of Attitude to Life to their points of views in Hong Kong’s Critique, and they cannot explain what Hu Feng’s persistence means either.It is not accidental that Hu Feng’s theory of Subject put great emphasis on subject and sensibility. It is a theoretical practice of intellectuals in the left wing to consciously develop the subjective and sensible factors in Marxism and to go against the nationalist thoughts derived from popular sensibility, which attempting to use nationalist criterion to substitute for class and internationalism in Marxism. It is also a component part of the sinolization of Marxism, based on Marx and Engel’s works on ideology and the Chinese revolutionary literary tradition formed by Lu Xun and other writers afterwards. If we simply study the development of Hu Feng’s literary thought While neglecting this background, we can neither fully understand the appearance of the concepts such as the Sensible Object in Hu Feng’s thought in this period, nor properly estimate the value of his literary theory in the tradition of Chinese Marxist literary theory.更多还原