【作者】 何卫华；

【导师】 郭军；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 在当前中国理论界，赛义德的位置是引人注目的，其作品不断被各学科领域的学者所注解、评论和引述。但是，国内对赛氏理论的内在逻辑性以及系统性目前还没有太多学者进行过宏观的论述。在本文中，作者试图通过将赛义德定位为一名颠覆型的知识分子进行考察，以其作为其理论的内在逻辑主线，对他关于东方的理论进行系统的描述。 第一章主要论述赛氏所处的历史以及理论背景，并将赛氏定义为一位颠覆型的知识分子。在赛氏所处的年代，非殖民化运动在蓬勃兴起，而在理论界后现代主义理论已逐渐成为主流。这一切使得赛氏以一名颠覆型的知识分子的姿态出现，质疑在西方学界鼎盛的东方学思潮。赛氏的理论，特别是关于东西方关系的论述，已成为进行后殖民的讨论的一个必须的参照系。 第二章阐述了赛氏关于世俗批评的论述。对批评以及知识的世俗性的确信，使得赛氏得出了一个具有变革意义的结论：东方学是建构的，是种族中心主义的，其目的是凌驾于并且控制东方。东方被描述为低等的，而西方则处于一个优越的地位。赛氏主要是在批判西方(准确的说是英国、法国和近来的北美)通过其经济的、政治的以及学术的力量、以及自身所规定的一套术语和规则来建立一套二元对立的话语，在这套话语当中，高高在上的西方对位于一个被规训的、沉默的东方“他者”。 第三章讨论人们如何才能超越于东方主义的视野(这种视野不断施加影响于后来的东方学话语)。这种视野，已经成为福柯意义上的“认识型”，加上长期以来的东方主义传统，使得所有关于东方的话语都必须遵循这种东方学家所达成的“共识”，也使得其他的言说方式成为不可能。早期的赛氏从福柯处受益良多，但是后来赛氏在对对抗进行讨论的时候，背离了福柯的理论，认为抵抗是可能的，东方学视野也是可以超越的。根据赛氏，那些真实以及隐喻意义上的“流亡者”具有多重视野，因此可以超越于东方学之上，进行不同的言说，进行文化抵抗。⑧硕士学位论之入1 1\51卜I七’S川1 51气 第四章讨论了话语政治以及文化抵抗。根据福柯，话语和权力是相互暗含的:权力控制知识的生产，而另一方面，知识产生更多的权力。结合对赛氏相关文本的解读，本文追溯了赛氏关于东方学为殖民统治以及帝国权力张目的论证，同时还分析了赛氏有关文化抵抗以及抵抗来源的观点。从赛氏的著作中我们可以得出结论，抵抗不仅来自殖民地内部，同时也来自外部，即宗主国和旅居作家。 第五章论述了赛氏理论的实际意义。超越使得不同于、背离东方学的其他言说方式得以进行。作者将这些偏离了东方主义“认识型”的言说称为反话语，反话语对殖民地的历史以及现在进行全新的言说，这种话语的生产无疑会造成东方学话语的合法性危机，带来东方学的危机。在东方学之后，在跨文化交际当中，人们又应采取什么策略?在这一部分，结合赛氏的著作，作者阐述了赛氏关于重构文化秩序的观点。 第六章论述了赛氏理论在中国文化发展中的现实意义。长期以来，在国际舞台上，中国患了“失语症”一般，一任西方误征误现。作者认为，现在中国应该发出自己的声音，在国际文化交流中采取身份政治和差异政治的策略以求真实再现中国，而不是为了迎合某些西方人对异国情调的渴望，而自我东方化。更多还原

【Abstract】 As a literary and cultural critic and social commentator, Said has occupied a salient place and his works has been frequently quoted by scholars in various disciplines. However no one has ever seriously tried to approach the inner connections and logic of his theories and explain how Said gradually builds up his system of theory in China. This paper tries to give a more systematic study of Said’s theories concerning the conception and representation of the Orient through examining his positioning as a subversive intellectual.Chapter one is about the historical and cultural background of Said’s theory and analyzes his stance as a subversive intellectual. Said lives in an era in which the decolonizing movement is in full swing and theories under the title of post-modernism are full of vigor and vitality. Imbued in this atmosphere, Said poses himself as a subversive intellectual and challenges the prevalent Orientalism. Said’s theories, especially those about the relationship between the West and the East are of great significance. And his theories contribute much to the later discussions around post-colonialism.Chapter two analyzes the primary principles underlying Said’s writings which serve as the driving force for him. Believing that criticism and knowledge are secular and worldly, Said reveals that the whole academy of Orientalism is constructed to be a way of domination and having authority over the Orient and the discourses about the Orient are mainly ethnocentric. The Orient is depicted as inferior while the west is superior. Said’s main critique is directed against the way in which the Western (defined more specifically as British, French, and to a certain extent more recently, North American) economic, political and academic powers have developed a dichotomized discourse in which an ascendant West is juxtaposed with a silent Eastern Other according to terms and definitions specified and determined by the West itself.Chapter three is about how people could avoid the determining restrictions of the perspectives and underlying rules set down by Orientalism. The binary division between the Orient and the West has become an episteme in Foucault’s sense thatgoverns all discourses about the Orient. What’s more, there has been a long tradition of Orientalism which also influences the later production of Orientalist discourses. Thus all the discourses concerning Orientalism have to abide by the "consensus" reached by the Orientalists. Both these two factors combined to make other modes of narration about the Orient almost impossible. But here Said digresses from Foucault, from whom he quotes and learns a lot in his early days by taking up the theme of cultural resisitance. Orientalism, as an episteme is still being able to be transcended. According to Said, by being an exile in the actual or in the metaphorical sense, people can gain multiple perspectives and thus transcend the episteme of Orientalism which is also a kind of counternarrative.Chapter four is about discourse politics and cultural resistance. According to Foucault, discourse and power imply each other. On the one hand, power governs the production of knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge creates more power in return. Based on Said’s writings, the author points out Said’s views about the political purposes of Orientalist discourses: to gather information and prepare for colonization and domination, to legitimize the colonization and domination, to produce docile "objects". However, Said points out that at the same time, resistance has always been there in his later book called Culture and Imperialism. In the later part of this chapter the author goes on to analyze the sources of cultural resistance based on the reading of Said. For him, cultural resistance comes from both inside and outside of the colonies.Chapter five is about the practical significance of Said’s theories. The transcendence of exiles enables a new mode of narration about the Orient. These narrations that digress from the Orientalist perspective are called counter-更多还原