20世纪中国文学的价值辨析

20世纪的中国文学作为一种价值性存在,其价值走向经历了戊戌文学革新时启蒙社会、开通民智的文学救国论;五四时期以民主与科学实现人的启蒙与觉醒,文学完成了从古典形态到现代形态的整体转换;30年代在救亡背景下的文学社会化转向;40-70年代大众化的政治工具论;80年代在非艺术的轰动中复兴文学之梦,以找回人的尊严和文学自信;90年代在边缘中寻找本位,文学在非轰动的艺术坚守中回到自身等发展阶段.基于历史的逻辑和理论的逻辑,可以对百年中国文学的价值范式作出这样几种判断一是意义认同--社会本位的"世纪波";二是形态复归--构筑价值载体的"同心圆";三是本体认知--价值转型、价值游离、价值接轨的"三级跳"等.     

如何阐释中国文学

如何阐释中国文学?这原本不是一个问题.但一个多世纪以来,我们用来阐释文学的理论大都是西方外来理论,我们没有自己的文学阐释学.杨义在<感悟通论>中提出建立一种"感悟学"的文学阐释学思路,他认为,感悟是中国智慧和思维能力的传统优势所在,我们应该在中西文化特别是中西思维通融的宏阔视野中,充分激活感悟思维这一民族智慧优势,立足具体的文学文本,通过涵咏浸渍与生命体验来进行具有中国特色的文学阐释."悟性细读"是这种文学阐释学的最基本的方法.     

政治文化视角:20年代中国文学的接受阐释

选择政治文化的视角 ,重估 2 0世纪初新文学建设 ,有三种文学接受方式值得注意。一是新文学运动传递的信息 ,是发动者组织者的政治观念的文学显现 ;二是新文学的创作者和一般阅读者文学价值的寻找 ,在于政治与现实问题密切联系中的文学期待 ;三是新文学的生产者经营者经济利益与文学关系的调节 ,形成了一种特殊的文学接受形式 ,整合的政治经济驱动了文学的生产过程。由此 ,文学与政治不再是简单的五四启蒙者与接受者之间的被动关系 ,而是多重政治文化因素的互动和影响。新文学的发生发展将在大的文化语境中获得新阐释 ,呈现丰富现象和形态     

“文学是人学”的现代阐释

新时期以来对"文学是人学"这个命题的质疑与阐释相互缠绕,引起了不同范围的论争。对这一命题学理逻辑的质疑与阐释,从生态文艺学角度提出的自然与人之关系的质疑与阐释,以及对于命题中"人学"理解的歧义与争论等,都既具有启发意义又值得进一步商榷。现代社会人文精神的困厄向我们昭示了新的阐释之维:一方面,追求自由与超越是人的生命本性;另一方面,文学以审美的方式显现着人的自由性,因此人的自由与文学的自由性具有内在的同一性。这是一个文学价值论的维度,从这个维度来理解文学,作家以审美创造的方式实现超越和追求精神自由,而读者则通过文学作品,以审美想象的方式实现超越并获得自由,"文学是人学"的意义正在于此。     

文学理论教材建设中的现代主义文学

本文对上世纪80年代初期至90年代初期文学理论教材建设涉论西方现代主义文学的情况进行了较为具体的述评,亦兼及90年代中晚期至新世纪＂教材建设＂对现代主义与后现代主义的评价。涉论教材34部。     

世界文学的维度性

仅仅谈论世界文学这一点就会让我们将文学置于空间范畴之内进行思考,尤其是在其广延方面.这是否就是一种好的知性之举呢?这里需要做两方面的考察.第一,这种思维习惯很难与很多现有的、信息充分的关于文学的具体性的论点相得益彰;第二,语义学和隐喻学通过文学翻译和跨文化阐释而产生的交叉,对文学某种单一的广延领域.以及这一观念构成了极大的障碍.     

文学研究会文学主张与创作实践论析

本文对五四新文学运动中最早出现的文学社团——“文学研究会”的文学主张和创作实践,作了简括、剀切的论析。     

文学语境的实践表征

文学语境是在文学经验、文学传统、文学知识和文学批评理论等文学场域之中达成的一种动态性共识的范畴。在此场域之中的文学创作、文学阅读和文学交往活动,文学话语形式生产和意义赋予以及语境差带来的文学音乐、图像和情感性审美都是对文学语境的具体实践。文学语境的此种具体实践所趋向的目的不在自身之外,而就在其自身,正耦合了康德对艺术审美判断“无目的的合目的性”的思想。     

德里达的解构主义文学观探析

作为解构主义理论的代表人物,德里达从解构主义的立场出发,提出“文学是一种建制”的观点,并在此基础上,追问“什么是文学”,对文学与文学性的问题进行阐释与思考。从这一意义而言,德里达的解构主义文学观为我们提供了一条审视文学的崭新视角。     

没有辛亥革命,何来五四文学——辛亥革命与五四文学革命的发生

对于五四文学革命的发生,目前流行的观点有两种思路:一种是强调五四文学革命直接受益于新文化运动,五四文学革命作为新文化运动的重要构成,其价值取向直接来自新文化运动的民主、科学的新文化想象,晚清以来的主流文学作为一种渐变的铺垫,在新文化运动之际终于发生突变——这是“文革”结束以后,大陆文学史普遍采用的一种的文学史模式;另一种是世纪之交舶来的思路,即王德威的“没有晚清,何来五四”的观点,强调晚清以来被大陆文学史忽视或“压抑”的非主流文学(狎邪、公案、科幻等小说)具有不可忽视的现代性.     

May Fourth Literary Tradition and the Transformation of Chinese Literature in the 1930s

“五四”作为中国现代文学的开端,是绕不开和说不尽的一个传统和话题。文章 选择从20世纪30年代文学界对五四文学传统的反思入手,通过对五四文学与30年代文 学的阐释和评价,探究其背后所隐含的不同言说目的、方式和观照视角,由此来透视 言说者和评价者基于不同历史阶段所持的不同的文学思路。五四文学秉持的是一种人 文学科的思路,而30年代文学信守的则是一种社会科学的思路,而对于两个时代的不 同阐释和评价以及其间的种种复杂纠葛,在此都可找到准确、合理的解释。另外,通 过30年代与“五四”所持文学思路的差异,还可以反观五四文学传统以及把握30年代 文学的转型,总结五四文学传统和30年代文学传统的经验和教训。

关键词: 五四文学传统?30年代文学?文学转型?人文学科思路?社会科学思路

The May Fourth movement that ushered in China's modern literature constitutes a central and inexhaustible tradition and topic. This paper proceeds from the Chinese literary community's reflections on the May Fourth literary tradition to explore the different aims, methods and perspectives of the May Fourth and 1930s literature through the interpretations and evaluations of each period. May Fourth literature followed a humanist approach while that of the 1930s took a social sciences approach. This point can provide us with a correct and rational explanation of the different interpretations and evaluations of the two periods and their complex entanglement. Furthermore, by examining the differences in approach of the two periods, we can look back over the May Fourth literary tradition and gain a better grasp of the transformation of literature in the 1930s, and thus sum up the experience and lessons of the literary tradition of both periods.     

May Fourth Writers’ Reconstruction of Traditional Chinese Literary Classics

The classics are at the heart of traditional literature, and play an important role in its transmission. May Fourth writers did not totally reject traditional literary classics; rather, they selectively preserved and reinterpreted them, setting up a new canon based on the criteria of evolution, humanism, human relationships, popular culture, etc. To a certain extent, the May Fourth reconstruction of the classics inherited late Qing thought and views of literature, but it was more of an embodiment of new intellectual horizons; a modern spirit acting through the rediscovery and recreation of traditional literature. The reconstruction of the classical canon revealed a close connection between the New Literature and traditional literature, thereby effectively facilitating the acceptance of New Literature by the masses. It also provided writers with national resources for literary creation, thus preventing New Literature from descending to nihilistic understanding of Chinese tradition. This mode of discovering and creating the modern while being rooted in their native soil enabled such writers to step out of the binary opposition between “making China Western” and “Sinicizing the West,” and thus has methodological significance for the relation between Chinese and Western cultures from the late Qing on. Literary classics have a profound meaning for writers’ creations and for literature and cultural tradition. Despite its shortcomings, the May Fourth reconstruction of the traditional classics can inspire us even today.     

The Profound Influence of Linguistic Change on the Development of Modern Chinese Literary Forms

Literature is the art of language, so in the light of the profound influence of linguistic transformation on the development of modem Chinese literary forms it is appropriate to present the history of the development of modern Chinese literature as the art of language. Modern Chinese literature starts with the linguistic transformation of the May Fourth Movement’s rejection of classical Chinese and promotion of the vernacular. This language revolution and the transformation of literary language during each subsequent historical period have exerted a profound inf1uence on the overall development of modern Chinese literature, including literary forms, and hence have become an inner source of the development and evolution of modern Chinese literary forms and of the shaping of their main characteristics. An in-depth discussion of the interaction between linguistic transformation and the development of modern Chinese literary forms as well as the rules governing this process will not only disclose the universal linguistic context of literary creation created by the transformation of language but will also enable us to find the historical sources of the phenomena of literary genres and forms, writers’ choice of literary styles, the formal characteristics of literary works, etc., and will offer a correct explanation and evaluation of the May Fourth vernacular movement and the subsequent series of new literary forms and styles. This is instrumental to achieving a better summation of the experience and lessons of the development of modern Chinese literary forms and to finding historical clues to the development of our present-day literary forms.     

试论郝经文学创作的渊源与造诣

郝经以理学著名,对其文学成就与文学史地位历来较少注意。文章以郝氏文论为主并联系其各体文学方面的创作实践,探索其文学创作的渊源及其艺术上所达到的成就,指出郝经以金代中期以来形成的"国朝文派"为其文学基础,并上溯到以北宋中期文学为下限的整个古代文学传统,对宣和以下的宋代文学则有所贬抑,隐含有以金元文学为正统的文学史观。郝经同时继承宋金时代理学与文学两方面的传统,重视诗赋文章的艺术表现,注重才情,表现出气格与法度并重的创作倾向。其古文继承唐宋古文家的思想与艺术传统,古体诗与辞赋则追仿汉魏六朝的风格。郝经作为一个处于复杂交错的政治、族群及文化背景中的文学家,是十分值得研究的。     

“言志”诗学对中国现代文学的内在影响(英文)

否定与批判“言志”诗学,曾是中国现代文学转型的标志。但从五四新文学开始,“言志”诗学不仅没有被剔出中国现代文学的审美范畴,相反,却借助于西方话语得到合理的传承。“言”救亡图存的启蒙之“志”,与“抒”忧国忧民的个人之“情”,中国现代文学都未摆脱“志”者“大情”、“情”者“小志”的传统思维,具体表现在：主“思”派提倡文学创作的功利意识,进而以“志”代“情”回归“道”统;主“情”派则提倡文学创作的真情实感,进而以“情”传“志”,回归“道”统。中国现代文学的理论与实践,虽然涂抹着光怪陆离的“西化”色彩,但其重新“释道”与巧妙“言志”的本质特征,恰恰表明了它对传统文化的价值认同,而不是简单地抛弃“传统”后走向了“西方”。     

现代性与中国的诗性浪漫主义

浪漫主义是对现代性的第一次反叛.中国五四以后的30年代文学和新时期文学发生了两次浪漫主义思潮.由于中国现代性的特性以及传统文化的影响,决定了中国浪漫主义不同于西方的神性浪漫主义.而是一种诗性浪漫主义.它具有现实关怀、写实风格、明朗健康的情绪、平民精神等特性.     

Chinese Literature's Transformation and Digital Existence in the New Century

数字化传媒的革故鼎新已成为推动中国文学世纪转型的强大引擎。网络文学的市 场化崛起打破了传统文学的原有平衡,让当今文学的整体格局遭遇数字技术的创生性 重整。第四媒体不可抗拒的技术力量导致文学大范围转向“数字化生存”,从存在方 式和表意体制上改写了文学惯例。这需要我们厘清数字化媒体在文学转型中“消解” 与“建构”的双重功能,以便从不同的学理维度上为文论拓新建构数字化生存时代的 文学观念,使数字媒介对传统的挑战变成未来文学别创新声的契机,让新媒介成为新 世纪中国文学的强劲动力和有效资源。

关键词: 中国文学?世纪转型?数字化生存

The reform ignited by digital media provided strong impetus to literary transformation at the turn of century in China. The market‐led rise of online literature has destroyed the balance of traditional literature and resulted in a fundamental digital readjustment of the overall literary structure. The fourth medium, with its irresistible technological force, has led to a large‐scale literary shift towards “being digital,” thereby changing literary traditions of existence and expression. Such being the case, we need to clarify digital media's dual function of “deconstruction” and “construction” in this literary shift so as to input new ideas from a different academic perspective into literary theory of the digital era, turn digital media's challenge to tradition into a chance for literary innovation and make the new media into a powerful driving force and effective resource for Chinese literature in the new century.     

On the Development of a Chinese Discourse in Literary Studies Based on Current Practice

There are two mistaken tendencies in the development of a Chinese literary discourse in academia. One is the “red dancing shoes” phenomenon, where scholars run helter- skelter after the latest developments in Western literary theory; the other is the “bound feet” phenomenon, where tradition-bound scholars believe that tradition must be kept unchanged and that Chinese literary theory should be cleansed of all alien elements. Neither approach is desirable. Contemporary Chinese literary theory should be grounded in present realities and should distinguish between substance and function. “Substance” has to consist of China’s present literary creation and critical practice; only thus can we appropriate Western and traditional Chinese literary theories in the service of today’s needs, and make the ancient serve the modern and the foreign the Chinese. This will enable us to develop a literary discourse that is both contemporary and Chinese.     

关于中国传统文学艺术传统的再认识

中国传统文学主要指从公元前11世纪,即中国第一部诗歌总集《诗经》中最早的诗篇出现起,直至1919年“五四”新文化运动以前的中国古代(含近代)文学。中国传统文学在特殊的文化背景下形成了具有民族特色的艺术传统,主要表现为以下几个方面:一、“风”、“骚”与现实主义、浪漫主义传统;二、“诗言志”、“诗缘情”与重表现、重抒情的传统;三、文学形象创造的“形神兼备”传统;四、文学形式的多样性传统;五、文学风格的丰富性传统。认真研究和梳理传统文学的艺术传统,并加以扬弃,无疑有益于当今的文学发展和文化建设。