作为冷战产物的西方“文学理论”学科:后冷战时代的批评之声
|
摘要
近年来西方文论不断被我国学界一些同仁所诟病。但各种指责,无妨于它继续成为我们文学批评的主要方法、基本概念,仍然是我们认识文学的最重要工具。这意味着,我们需要改进认识已经成为自足体的西方文论的思维方式:从欧洲文学批评实践即实用性批评(practice critique),经美国转化为"文学理论"——改造了英国的新批评、发现并激活了俄苏形式主义,创立了结构主义、符号学、后结构主义、解构主义、心理分析、女性主义、后殖民批评、文化研究等批评方法,无论其本身多么荒谬或富有创建性,皆因战后包括反映论在内的苏联各种理论在东方阵营的巨大召唤力、对西方左翼知识分子的诱惑力,欧美尤其是主导冷战进程的美国,积极应对,调整学术制度和大学发展方向,使得文学批评方法探索如同经济学、法学、政治学等一样,日新月异,并进入大学的文学教育,通过教材、课程、专门教学团队等方式,发挥着远超出文学史和文学批评实践的作用而成为重要学科。在冷战时代膨胀成自足体的文学理论,因强调专业化和科学性,在事实上伤及文学及文学教育,引发文学研究界的指责声不绝于耳。但政治正确在西方不直接干预理论创新,关于文学理论危机的批评更多是学术界内部的行为,并自然成为文学理论学科发展的一部分,导致问题甚多的文学理论反而充满活力,拥有苏联文学理论所难以相媲美的自愈能力,发挥着其所不及的作用。这种矛盾,并未随着冷战结束而终结,相反,因西方价值体系在全球化过程中遭遇诸多冲击,在后冷战时代,关于文学理论的危机之论,持续存在并不断加剧。但这种批评性声音,其意义非同小可。
The Western theory of literature has been blamed by the Chinese academia in recent years.However,it didnt stop it as the main methods of literary critics.The western academia transformed the European critique into literary theory from 1950,including to rediscover and activate the Russian formalism,and to establish structuralism,semiology,post-structuralism,deconstruction and so on.The critical methods have a lots of absurdities and innovations.The rapidly changed critical methods were specifically aimed at the Socialist Realism which had great attraction to the Eastern Bloc and the Western Leftwing intellectuals.The critical methods used for literary curriculum,was transformed into a series of courses in the departments of languages and literatures or comparative literature in the American-European universities,which played an important role as a discipline beyond the course of literary history.The literary theory which expanded from doctrines to self-sufficient subject,in fact,injured literature and literary education due to its strong emphasis on professional and scientific identity of literary research.This situation increasingly encouraged some writers and scholars to censure the literary theory.The discussion of crisis of literary theory accident turned into the part of literary theory.The critical opinions have great significance for reconstruction of literary theory in the age of post-cold war.
The Western theory of literature has been blamed by the Chinese academia in recent years.However,it didnt stop it as the main methods of literary critics.The western academia transformed the European critique into literary theory from 1950,including to rediscover and activate the Russian formalism,and to establish structuralism,semiology,post-structuralism,deconstruction and so on.The critical methods have a lots of absurdities and innovations.The rapidly changed critical methods were specifically aimed at the Socialist Realism which had great attraction to the Eastern Bloc and the Western Leftwing intellectuals.The critical methods used for literary curriculum,was transformed into a series of courses in the departments of languages and literatures or comparative literature in the American-European universities,which played an important role as a discipline beyond the course of literary history.The literary theory which expanded from doctrines to self-sufficient subject,in fact,injured literature and literary education due to its strong emphasis on professional and scientific identity of literary research.This situation increasingly encouraged some writers and scholars to censure the literary theory.The discussion of crisis of literary theory accident turned into the part of literary theory.The critical opinions have great significance for reconstruction of literary theory in the age of post-cold war.
引文
(1)韦勒克:《批评的诸种概念》,丁泓、余徵译,成都:四川文艺出版社,1988年,第9-12页。
(2)Henri Peyre,The Failures of Criticism,Ithaca,New York:Cornell University Press,1967,p.227.
(3)Hazard Adams&Leroy Searle ed.,Critical Theory since 1965,Tallahassee:Florida State University Press,1986,p.1.
(1)苏珊·桑塔格:《反对阐释》,程巍译,上海:上海译文出版社,2003年,第5-10页。
(2)Henri Peyre,The Failures of Criticism,Ithaca,New York:Cornell University Press,1967,p.227.
(1)丹尼尔·贝尔:《后工业社会的来临---对社会预测的一项探索》,高铦、王宏周、魏章玲译,北京:商务印书馆,1984年,第115页。
(2)阿尔文·托夫勒:《第三次浪潮》,朱志焱译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1984年,第3、12-13、32、518页。
(3)Allan Bloom,The Closing of the American Mind,New York:A Touchstone Book,1987,p.33.
(1)Tobin Siebers,Cold War Criticism and the Politics of Skepticism,New York:Oxford University Press,1993,p.vii.
(2)Thomas M.Kavannagh,ed.,The Limits of Theory,Stanford,California:Stanford University Press,1989,p.1.
(1)Т. Гланц,Формальная школа и современное русское литературоведение. М. : Языки славянских культур,2011,C. 13.
(2)Victor Erich,Russian Formalism: History- Doctrine,New Haven & London: Yale University Press,1981,p. 286.
(3)Виктор Шкловский,Художественная проза. Размышления и разборы. М. : Советский писатель,1961,C. 6.
(1)弗兰索瓦·多斯(Francois Dosse):《从结构到解构:法国20世纪思想主潮》上,季广茂译,北京:中央编译出版社,2004年,第74-88页。
(2)Caryl Emerson,The First Hundred Years of Mikhаil Bakhtin,New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1997,p.38.
(3)Александр Ревякин,Проблемы изучения и преподавания литературы. М. : Просвещение,1972,C. 315 .
(1)David Gasperetti,The Rise of the Russian Novel:Carnival,Stylization and Mockery of the West,Dekalb:Northern Illinois University Press,1998,p.29.
(2)具体详情,参见加布里埃尔·洛克希尔:《中情局解读法国理论:论拆毁文化左翼的智力劳作》(2017),英文版,http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/。
(3)Jonathan Culler,Literary Theory:A Very Short Introduction,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997,pp.3-5.
(1)Helen Gardner,The Business of Criticism,Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1959,pp.80-84.
(2)Steven Knapp&Walter Benn Michaels,“Against Theory,”Critical Inquiry,Vol.8,1982,pp.723-742.
(3)Stein Haugom Olsen,The End of Literary Theory,Cambridge,New York,Melbourne:Cambridge University Press,1987,p.52.
(4)Gerald Graff,Professing Literature:An Institutional,Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987,p.252.
(5)Edward Davenpor,t“The Scientific Spirit”,in Joseph Natoli,ed.,Literary Theorys Future(s),Urban&Chicago:University of Illinois Press,1989,p.153.
(6)Jonathan Culler,“The Future of Criticism”,in Clayton Koelb&Virgil Lokke,ed.,The Current in Criticism:Essays on the Present and Future of Literary Theory,West Lafayette,Indiana:Purdue University Press,1986,pp.27-28.
(1)Stein Haugom Olsen,The End of Literary Theory,Cambridge,New York,Melbourne:Cambridge University Press,1987,pp.11,15.
(2)Alvin Kernan,The Death of Literature,New Haven&London:Yale University Press,1990,pp.1-2.
(3)Peter Collier&Helga Geyer-Ryan,eds.,Literary Theory Today,Oxford:Polity Press,1990,p.13.
(4)Evelyn Barish,The Double Life of Paul de Man,New York&London:Liveright Publishing Cor,2014,pp.469-486.
(1)Stanly Fish,“Consequences,”Critical Inquiry,No.3,1985.
(2)Victor Burgin,The End of Art Theory:Criticism and Postmodernity,London:Macmillan Education Ltd.,1986,pp.140-142.
(3)Quoted David Lehman,Signs of the Times:Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man,New York:Simon&Schuster/Poseidon Press,1991,p.156.
(4)杜克大学创办的《社会文本》(Social Text),是北美著名的后现代文化研究杂志,其编委包括詹明信等学界名流在内,在1996年春夏季号(pp.217-252)发表了纽约大学和伦敦大学学院量子物理学教授索卡尔(Alan Sokal)《超越边界:走向量子力学的超形式的解释学》(Transgressing the Boundaries:Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity),以量子力学证明后现代哲学的离经叛道之必然性。不幸的是,作者随后(1996年5月18日),在《通用语》(Lingua Franca)发表文章《一位物理学家对文化研究所做的实验》(A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies),详细说明1994年以来撰写那篇文章、以及《社会文本》编辑和他交流的过程,而他的目的就是要脱下后现代知识分子的“皇帝的新装”,故意求助于权威而不是论证的逻辑、证据,故弄玄虚地论述后现代主义与当代科学之间的紧密“联系”,在形式上把看似材料丰富、实则一无是处之作,包装得近乎完美。但编辑、审稿人和专家皆信以为真地相信这篇诈文所说,后现代哲学的进步已被科学特别是量子物理学的发展所“证实”。此事引发美国学界围绕“法国理论”及其有效性之激烈论争。索卡尔次年与鲁汶天主教大学理论物理和哲学教授(Jean Bricmont,1952-)合作用法文出版、第二年用英文出版《知识的骗局》,论述后现代一些理论家对科学的滥用。
(1)Harold Bloom,The Western Canon:The Books and School of Ages,London:Harcourt Brace,1994,pp.519-520.
(2)Peter Barry,Beginning Theory:An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory,Manchester&New York:Manchester University Press,1995,p.1.
(1)Catherine Burgass,Challenging Theory:Discipline after Deconstruction,Aldershot:Ashgate,1999,pp.1-2.
(2)Valentine Cunningham,Reading in Theory,Oxford:Blackwell,2000,pp.39,35-36.
(3)Terry Eagleton,How to Read a Poem,Malden,MA;Oxford:Blackwell Pub.,2007,p.1.
(4)Gaytri Chakravorty Spivak,Death of a Discipline,New York:Columbia University Press,2003,p.5.
(1)Ronan McD onald,The Death of the Critic,New York&London:Continuum,2007,pp.vii-viii.
(2)Judith Ryan,The Novel after Theory,New York:Columbia University Press,2012,pp.14-16.
(3)乔纳森·卡勒:《当今的文学理论》,生安锋译,《外国文学评论》2012年第4期。
(4)Mathias Nilges&Emilio Sauri,eds.,Literary Materialism,Palgrave:MacM illan,2013,p.3.
(5)Paul Jay,The Humanities“Crisis”and the Future of Literary Studies,New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2014.
(1)John W.Aldridge,“Criticism and Fiction:Teaching against the Political Grain,”The Bulletin of the Midwest Modern Language Association,Vol.5,No.1,Spring 1972,pp.11-19.
(2)哈罗德·布鲁姆:《影响的剖析:文学作为生活方式》,金雯译,南京:译林出版社,2016年,第7页。
(3)Murray Krieger,Theory of Criticism:A Tradition and Its Stems,Baltimore:Mid.,1976,p.7.
(4)William E.Cain,The Crisis in Criticism:Theory,Literature and Reform in English Studies,Baltimore&London:The John Hopkins U-niversity Press,1984,pp.xiii-xiv.
(5)Gary Day(ed.),The British Critical Tradition:A Re-evaluation,Basingstoke,Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan,1993,p.2.
(6)Jean-Paul Satre,“What is Literature”and Other,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1988,pp.283,284.
(1)Jonathan Culler,Literary Theory:A Very Short Introduction,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997,pp.15-16.
(2)Richard B.Schwartz,After the Death of Literature,Carbondale&Edwardsville:Southern Illinois University Press,1997,pp.10-24.
(1)Stanley Fish,Professional Correctness:Literary Studies and Political Change,Cambridge,MA:Harvard U P,1999.
(2)Terry Eagleton,How to Read a Poem,Malden,MA;Oxford:Blackwell Pub.,2007,pp.1-2.
(3)Ronan McD onald,The Death of the Critic,London&New York:Continuum,2007,pp.38-39.
(4)德瑞克·李波厄特:《五十年伤痕:美国的冷战历史观与世界》,郭学堂等译,上海:上海三联书店,2008年,第5页。
(1)W.J.T.Mitchell,Against Theory:Literary Studies and the New Pragmatism,Chicago:Chicago University Press,1985,p.52.
(2)Henri Peyre,The Failures of Criticism,Ithaca,New York:Cornell University Press,1967,p.227.
(3)Hazard Adams&Leroy Searle ed.,Critical Theory since 1965,Tallahassee:Florida State University Press,1986,p.1.
(1)苏珊·桑塔格:《反对阐释》,程巍译,上海:上海译文出版社,2003年,第5-10页。
(2)Henri Peyre,The Failures of Criticism,Ithaca,New York:Cornell University Press,1967,p.227.
(1)丹尼尔·贝尔:《后工业社会的来临---对社会预测的一项探索》,高铦、王宏周、魏章玲译,北京:商务印书馆,1984年,第115页。
(2)阿尔文·托夫勒:《第三次浪潮》,朱志焱译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1984年,第3、12-13、32、518页。
(3)Allan Bloom,The Closing of the American Mind,New York:A Touchstone Book,1987,p.33.
(1)Tobin Siebers,Cold War Criticism and the Politics of Skepticism,New York:Oxford University Press,1993,p.vii.
(2)Thomas M.Kavannagh,ed.,The Limits of Theory,Stanford,California:Stanford University Press,1989,p.1.
(1)Т. Гланц,Формальная школа и современное русское литературоведение. М. : Языки славянских культур,2011,C. 13.
(2)Victor Erich,Russian Formalism: History- Doctrine,New Haven & London: Yale University Press,1981,p. 286.
(3)Виктор Шкловский,Художественная проза. Размышления и разборы. М. : Советский писатель,1961,C. 6.
(1)弗兰索瓦·多斯(Francois Dosse):《从结构到解构:法国20世纪思想主潮》上,季广茂译,北京:中央编译出版社,2004年,第74-88页。
(2)Caryl Emerson,The First Hundred Years of Mikhаil Bakhtin,New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1997,p.38.
(3)Александр Ревякин,Проблемы изучения и преподавания литературы. М. : Просвещение,1972,C. 315 .
(1)David Gasperetti,The Rise of the Russian Novel:Carnival,Stylization and Mockery of the West,Dekalb:Northern Illinois University Press,1998,p.29.
(2)具体详情,参见加布里埃尔·洛克希尔:《中情局解读法国理论:论拆毁文化左翼的智力劳作》(2017),英文版,http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/。
(3)Jonathan Culler,Literary Theory:A Very Short Introduction,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997,pp.3-5.
(1)Helen Gardner,The Business of Criticism,Oxford:The Clarendon Press,1959,pp.80-84.
(2)Steven Knapp&Walter Benn Michaels,“Against Theory,”Critical Inquiry,Vol.8,1982,pp.723-742.
(3)Stein Haugom Olsen,The End of Literary Theory,Cambridge,New York,Melbourne:Cambridge University Press,1987,p.52.
(4)Gerald Graff,Professing Literature:An Institutional,Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987,p.252.
(5)Edward Davenpor,t“The Scientific Spirit”,in Joseph Natoli,ed.,Literary Theorys Future(s),Urban&Chicago:University of Illinois Press,1989,p.153.
(6)Jonathan Culler,“The Future of Criticism”,in Clayton Koelb&Virgil Lokke,ed.,The Current in Criticism:Essays on the Present and Future of Literary Theory,West Lafayette,Indiana:Purdue University Press,1986,pp.27-28.
(1)Stein Haugom Olsen,The End of Literary Theory,Cambridge,New York,Melbourne:Cambridge University Press,1987,pp.11,15.
(2)Alvin Kernan,The Death of Literature,New Haven&London:Yale University Press,1990,pp.1-2.
(3)Peter Collier&Helga Geyer-Ryan,eds.,Literary Theory Today,Oxford:Polity Press,1990,p.13.
(4)Evelyn Barish,The Double Life of Paul de Man,New York&London:Liveright Publishing Cor,2014,pp.469-486.
(1)Stanly Fish,“Consequences,”Critical Inquiry,No.3,1985.
(2)Victor Burgin,The End of Art Theory:Criticism and Postmodernity,London:Macmillan Education Ltd.,1986,pp.140-142.
(3)Quoted David Lehman,Signs of the Times:Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man,New York:Simon&Schuster/Poseidon Press,1991,p.156.
(4)杜克大学创办的《社会文本》(Social Text),是北美著名的后现代文化研究杂志,其编委包括詹明信等学界名流在内,在1996年春夏季号(pp.217-252)发表了纽约大学和伦敦大学学院量子物理学教授索卡尔(Alan Sokal)《超越边界:走向量子力学的超形式的解释学》(Transgressing the Boundaries:Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity),以量子力学证明后现代哲学的离经叛道之必然性。不幸的是,作者随后(1996年5月18日),在《通用语》(Lingua Franca)发表文章《一位物理学家对文化研究所做的实验》(A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies),详细说明1994年以来撰写那篇文章、以及《社会文本》编辑和他交流的过程,而他的目的就是要脱下后现代知识分子的“皇帝的新装”,故意求助于权威而不是论证的逻辑、证据,故弄玄虚地论述后现代主义与当代科学之间的紧密“联系”,在形式上把看似材料丰富、实则一无是处之作,包装得近乎完美。但编辑、审稿人和专家皆信以为真地相信这篇诈文所说,后现代哲学的进步已被科学特别是量子物理学的发展所“证实”。此事引发美国学界围绕“法国理论”及其有效性之激烈论争。索卡尔次年与鲁汶天主教大学理论物理和哲学教授(Jean Bricmont,1952-)合作用法文出版、第二年用英文出版《知识的骗局》,论述后现代一些理论家对科学的滥用。
(1)Harold Bloom,The Western Canon:The Books and School of Ages,London:Harcourt Brace,1994,pp.519-520.
(2)Peter Barry,Beginning Theory:An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory,Manchester&New York:Manchester University Press,1995,p.1.
(1)Catherine Burgass,Challenging Theory:Discipline after Deconstruction,Aldershot:Ashgate,1999,pp.1-2.
(2)Valentine Cunningham,Reading in Theory,Oxford:Blackwell,2000,pp.39,35-36.
(3)Terry Eagleton,How to Read a Poem,Malden,MA;Oxford:Blackwell Pub.,2007,p.1.
(4)Gaytri Chakravorty Spivak,Death of a Discipline,New York:Columbia University Press,2003,p.5.
(1)Ronan McD onald,The Death of the Critic,New York&London:Continuum,2007,pp.vii-viii.
(2)Judith Ryan,The Novel after Theory,New York:Columbia University Press,2012,pp.14-16.
(3)乔纳森·卡勒:《当今的文学理论》,生安锋译,《外国文学评论》2012年第4期。
(4)Mathias Nilges&Emilio Sauri,eds.,Literary Materialism,Palgrave:MacM illan,2013,p.3.
(5)Paul Jay,The Humanities“Crisis”and the Future of Literary Studies,New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2014.
(1)John W.Aldridge,“Criticism and Fiction:Teaching against the Political Grain,”The Bulletin of the Midwest Modern Language Association,Vol.5,No.1,Spring 1972,pp.11-19.
(2)哈罗德·布鲁姆:《影响的剖析:文学作为生活方式》,金雯译,南京:译林出版社,2016年,第7页。
(3)Murray Krieger,Theory of Criticism:A Tradition and Its Stems,Baltimore:Mid.,1976,p.7.
(4)William E.Cain,The Crisis in Criticism:Theory,Literature and Reform in English Studies,Baltimore&London:The John Hopkins U-niversity Press,1984,pp.xiii-xiv.
(5)Gary Day(ed.),The British Critical Tradition:A Re-evaluation,Basingstoke,Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan,1993,p.2.
(6)Jean-Paul Satre,“What is Literature”and Other,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1988,pp.283,284.
(1)Jonathan Culler,Literary Theory:A Very Short Introduction,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997,pp.15-16.
(2)Richard B.Schwartz,After the Death of Literature,Carbondale&Edwardsville:Southern Illinois University Press,1997,pp.10-24.
(1)Stanley Fish,Professional Correctness:Literary Studies and Political Change,Cambridge,MA:Harvard U P,1999.
(2)Terry Eagleton,How to Read a Poem,Malden,MA;Oxford:Blackwell Pub.,2007,pp.1-2.
(3)Ronan McD onald,The Death of the Critic,London&New York:Continuum,2007,pp.38-39.
(4)德瑞克·李波厄特:《五十年伤痕:美国的冷战历史观与世界》,郭学堂等译,上海:上海三联书店,2008年,第5页。
(1)W.J.T.Mitchell,Against Theory:Literary Studies and the New Pragmatism,Chicago:Chicago University Press,1985,p.52.