【作者】 代云红；

【导师】 方克强；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 “文学人类学”分歧的产生是一种历史现象、社会现象、文化现象和个人现象。我们在看待“文学人类学”概念、历史、理论、方法及价值观方面的分歧时,应首先考虑上述几方面的原因。文章遵循的思考路向是从现象梳理入手,辨析分歧,探寻原因,发现“同一性”,然后在理论阐释中提出文学人类学的理论整合及建构的问题。文章包括前言和结语,正文按照概念、历史、理论、方法、价值观的认知框架来分析文学人类学基本问题。第一章主要分析了20世纪80年代文艺本体论语境中的“文学人类学”分歧,学科交叉中的“文学人类学”分歧和学科分类中的“文学人类学”分歧。文章指出,产生这些分歧的原因首先是80年代文艺本体论讨论中出现的分歧影响了对“文学人类学”的概念、内涵、学科归属的“定位”问题,同时也影响了“文学人类学”后来的发展路向。无论是文学与人类学结合部问题上的分歧,还是把“文学人类学”依附于文艺学、人类学、比较文学的分歧,在一定程度上都缺乏对“人类学”和“文学”两个熟知概念进行必要的批判性反思。文章在辨析各种分歧后指出,理解“文学人类学”的关键还在于确定“文学”与“人类学”结合部的问题。第二章主要分析了四个基本问题：历史起点、历史分期、对1950-1970年代学术的评价、海峡两岸的“文学人类学”。文章指出,对中国文学人类学历史的重构包含着对“文学人类学”是什么的认识问题。当代文学人类学历史的探讨主要限于神话的视角以及神话仪式学派和原型批评理论,这造成了一定的偏狭性认识,也在一定程度上影响了对1950-1970年代学术研究的评价。文章认为,应当把台湾(也包括港澳)地区的文学人类学研究纳入中国文学人类学历史中来考虑,形成优势互补的研究状态。另外,文章初步认为,中国文学人类学历史可分为五个阶段,它们揭示了中国文学人类学历史的思想语境：现代性与后现代性。第三章以辨析人类学意义和文学人类学意义上的“人类学写作”分歧为前提,探讨文学人类学理论的整合与建构问题。文章指出两种意义上的“人类学写作”尽管存在学科原则上的分歧,但都关注人类“表述”问题的研究,而且认为,对人类“表述”问题的研究是探讨理论和发展理论的重要途径。中外学者对“人类学写作”的探讨沟通了人类学与诗论、以及一般文艺理论及美学的关系,为我们探讨“文学人类学”理论提供了启示性意义。各种理论尽管在目的、主张等方而存在分歧,但都受到“语言学转向”的影响,把人类“表述”问题作为关键性问题来探讨。各种理论都是研究人类“表述”的理论,而且这些理论本身也构成了一种“表述”系统。第四章主要分析了文学人类学多重证据法的内涵、历史渊源、现代变革意义以及不足。文章指出,四重证据法与二、三重证据法最大的不同是：四重证据法是以口头文化为基本价值立场的,它虽然仍保持着二、三重证据法的“场域”结构形态,但各类型媒介的关系及位置已经发生了变化,它的场域中心已由文字中心转向非文字中心。在“四重证据法”里蕴含着“文化寻根”与“文明反思”的批判性内涵,它表明“四重证据法”不再以补正史之缺为价值诉求,而是要揭示被文字所遮蔽或遗忘的“历史”。不过,文章也指出,“四重证据法”也存在夸大某一媒介作用的倾向,在一定程度上忽视了媒介霸权和符号暴力的问题。第五章主要在前现代、现代与后现代的价值视野里分析了“文学治疗”的价值及意义,田野与文本、口头文化与书写文化中的价值偏颇问题。另外,文章分析了当代文学人类学研究“多民族文学史观”的策略及思路,以及由此提出重建文学人类学意义上的文学观的意义。针对文学人类学在上述问题研究中的不足,文章认为将“文学治疗”研究与媒介环境学及环境文学批评加以整合,在一定程度上可以纠正文学人类学研究的“原始”倾向,同时也可以改变文学人类学在现当代文学研究方面薄弱的状况。总之,文章认为,在重建文学人类学价值观的意义上,把文学史、各种文学话语、文化文本当做环境话语或生态话语来阐释,会带来对文学的重新理解。分歧固然反映了对文学人类学认识的混乱,但同时也反映了文学人类学研究的多元性及复杂性。文学人类学的价值目标是整合人类文学经验,本论文的基本主张是在“同一性”的地方发现文学人类学研究的分歧、多样性及新颖性。文章认为,从重建文学人类学立场上的文学观角度来看,有两个方面需要注意：一是文学人类学研究应当具有口头文化与书面文化反差性及其思想的和心理的表现特征的历史视野；二是文学人类学应当具有多族群交际视角、民俗学视角、审美批评视角、性别诗学视角、媒介环境学视角、环境伦理批评视角等。总之,文学人类学应当具有“统一性”的内涵,保持多样性的研究视角。更多还原

【Abstract】 The divergence on literary anthropology is a historical phenomenon; also it is a phenomenon of society, culture and individual.So when treating the differences between the concepts, histories, theories, methods and values, we must consider them.The thinking patter of the dissertation is to dress the phenomenon,and discriminate the disagreement, then to explore the reason and identity, finally to bring up series of questions such as theory integration, construction of literary anthropology in theoretical interpretation.The article includes the introduction,text, and conclusion,in the main body, and it analyses some basic issues in the light of conception, history, theory, method, and value.Chapter one analyzes divergences of literary anthropology between the literary ontological theory in the 1980s of 20th century, the cross-discipline and subject classification.The paper points out that the divergences are influenced by the literary ontological theory in the 1980s of 20th century in the discussion on concepts, meanings, positions of subject ascription, also the developing way of literary anthropology is influenced by it in the future.The divergences on link between literature and anthropology, and the putting literary anthropology in the literature theory,anthropology and comparative literature, both of them lack of criticized thought on the concept between anthropology and literature.After analyzing various kinds’divergences, the essay proposes that the key is to confirm the conjunction between literature and anthropology when we understand the "literary anthropology"Chapter two analyzes four basic questions:the beginning and stages of history, assessments of science between 1950s-1970s, and the literary anthropology between mainland and Taiwan. The modern & contemporary discussion on history of literary anthropology is limited in the view of mythology, and myth-ritual school archetype-criticism which makes narrow acknowledge and influences the appraisal on academy during 1950s-1970s. The paper points out that we should consider the achievement in Taiwan into the history of literary anthropology, and so we can supplement each other on resource.Moreover, the essay indicates that the histories of literary anthropology can be divides into five stages which reveal the idea context of it:modernity and post-modernity. Chapter three discuss the theory integration and construction which base on the differences of literary writing between anthropology and literary anthropology.The paper points out that both of the two writing pay close attention studies "expression problems" on humanity. In addition, the essay accounts that study on mankind "expression problems" is the path to discussing of theories and theory development.A discussion among Scholars all over the world communicates the relationships between anthropology and poetics, literary theory and aesthetics which provide us the message on theory of literary anthropology. Since influenced by the "turn of language",every kind of theory treats the "expression problem" as key point despite there are some differences in purposes and views among them.Various kinds’theories study human "expression problem" which compose the "expression" system.Chapter four analyzes the meaning, historical origin, modern change of method of multi-ways evidence and its fault. The paper proposes that the differences betweens the method of quadruple way evidence and method of bi-way evidence, triple evidence is that former regards the oral culture as basic value which has changed the relationship and position of every kind agent although it remains field structure of the latter, and its field has turned from writing to un-writing.Among the method of quadruple ways evidence, there is critical meaning on cultural roots and civilization rethinking which indicates that what the quadruple evidence treats is to reveal the history blanked by writing, not to replenish the value of historical book. However, the paper also indicates that the method of quadruple way evidence exaggerate some medium and ignores the intermediary hegemony and symbolic violence.Chapter five talk about the value and significance of"literary cure" in the view of pre-modern,modern, post-modern, differences between field and text, oral culture and writing culture.Furthermore, the paper analyzes strategy and thinking on the view of multi-nationality history in the literary anthropology study. According to the shortage of those problems,the paper propose that we will integrate with the literary anthropology study and intermediary environment,critique of literary surrounding though which we can correct the "primitive" tendency and change the insignificance on the modern and contemporary literature study. In a word, the paper points out that during reconstructing the value of literary anthropology, we can re comprehend the literature if we treat the literary history, literary discourses and cultural text as the environmental and ecological discourses.The difference reflects the confusion on understanding of literary anthropology, and it also mirrors the multi-dimension and complexity on literary anthropology study. What the literary anthropology to target is integrating the literary experience of human,and the paper’s basic viewpoint is to discover the divergence, diversity and creation in the light of identity. In the essay, there are two points in course of reconstructing on literary anthropology which need cared:at first, we should regard its study as historical view on oral culture and writing culture, ideological and psychological feature;Second,literary anthropology should have the view of multi-nationality, folklore,aesthetics, gender poetics, intermediary environmentalism, environmental criticism.To sum up, literary anthropology should have the meaning of unity and retain diversity on the view of study.更多还原