海登·怀特的历史书写理论与文学观念

【作者】 杨杰；

【导师】 马龙潜；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 文艺学， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 海登·怀特是当代美国著名思想史家、历史学家、文学批评家，他主导了20世纪70年代以后的历史哲学领域中的语言学转向，并将历史意识与历史方法引入文学批评领域，成为跨学科研究的典范。 怀特享誉世界，是新历史主义文学批评研究所不能忽视的重要理论家，称其为“理论家”的原因是——在新历史主义“庞杂”的队伍中只有他对“历史”进行了系统化的理论阐述，而其他人(如格林布拉特等)更擅长批评实践而非理论阐述。怀特的理论在史学界激起轩然大波，褒贬不一。可是，失之东隅，收之桑榆，其理论竞成了文学批评界的必读经典。 怀特理论虽被广泛引用，但对其学术进行较为全面、深入研究的却是相当有限，我们能查阅到的仅仅是在对新历史主义文学批评进行宏观研究时所做的篇幅不过是一节的介绍，至于更为细致、深入的针对其个人的研究却是相当稀少。鉴于此，不论是否赞赏怀特的理论观点，都应回到对其理论本身的探讨上来，在对其理论进行较为全面分析、鉴别的基础之上再作出得失评判。这不失为一种科学的态度。 选取怀特的历史书写理论为研究课题不是一件轻松的事情。因为怀特知识渊博，学术功底深厚，不仅涉及多个学科领域知识，而且还大量论及学界泰斗的理论观点，其中的如海德格尔、伽达默尔、杰姆逊、福柯、利科等人的理论本身就很深奥，再加上怀特本人的生涩文笔，更令人有仰之弥高之感；尤其是在查阅他的原文资料时经常遇到夹杂意大利文、法文、德文等非英文词句，这也增加了理解的难度。 怀特的理论代表了“回归历史”的呼声。历史问题作为人类本体存在的时间维度必然引发我们的思考，更是文学研究不能回避、也绝对无法回避的问题。 他的理论具有“多声部”“复调”式的特点，可以概括为“一个核心、两个维度、两种视角”。所谓的“一个核心”是指怀特始终坚持文史相通的观念；“两个维度”指形式主义与“回归历史”是支撑其理论大厦的两个轴；“两种视角”是指“在文学中审视历史”和“在历史中研究文学”。“多声部”“复调”式特点，是指他的历史书写理论是一个“多元”的复合体，既有解释学与接受美学的“基更多还原

【Abstract】 Hayden White, an eminent contemporary thinker in the sphere of historiography, philosophy of history and literary theory, has dominated the linguistic turn in the field of philosophy of history since the 1970s and has introduced the history of consciousness and historical techniques into the sphere of literary theory, and is a model of cross-disciplinary study.Hayden White is internationally celebrated as a major theorist who cannot be neglected by anyone studying the literary critique of Neo-historicism. He is endowed the title ’theorist’ because he is the only one to have systematically and completely expatiated the ’history’ among the ’numerous and ponderous’ researchers studying Neo-historicism, while the others (such as Stephen Greenblatt, etc.) are good at critical practice more than the demonstration of system of theories. Hayden White’s theory of Historical Writing has prompted a great disturbance in the sphere of history, and attracted wildly different evaluations. However, ’What is lost in hake shall have been got in herring.’ His theory is therefore one of the classical and necessary reading materials in the field of cultural critique.Broadly quoted as his theories are, it is rare to find a comprehensive and systematic study on his academic theories. What we can refer to is just a simple introduction within a section among the macro study of Neo-historicism, let alone a further research carefully and thoroughly on his personal achievements. Considering the present condition, it cannot be deviated to be a scientific attitude to return to the discussion of his theories by themselves and judge again his success and failure on the basis of fully analysis and identification of his theories no matter arguing pro and con.It is not easy to take Hayden White’s theory of Historical Writing as the researching subject because Hayden White is erudite and has a profound academic foundation, especially, his study extends multiple-disciplinary fields and tackles a large number of views of point come from the authorities and masters in academia, such as Martin Heidegger. Hans-Georg George Gadamer, Fredric Jameson, Michel Foucault,and Paul更多还原