跨语境实践

【作者】 王金凤；

【导师】 赵利民；

【作者基本信息】 曲阜师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2004， 硕士

【副题名】“文化研究”对当代中国文学研究的影响

【摘要】 “文化研究”在中国日益成为一门显学。威廉斯、霍尔、费斯克等理论为学者们耳熟能详并予以积极热烈的回应。“文化研究”作为一种开放的、跨学科式的理论或学术范式，表现出丰沛的活力。其多元异质的思维方式把文学研究从十分逼仄的空间内解放出来。“文化研究”的实践性品格催发文学重新建立起与社会、生活的紧密联系，这是对越来越学科化、封闭化、过度自律化的文学研究的反拨与超越。不可否认，文学重返自身、注重内部的提出，在二十世纪八十年代的中国有革命性意义。但是，中国当代特殊的历史情境(消费社会初步形成、视觉文化由边缘走向中心、审美泛化现象出现等)决定了当代文学现象的丰富性、鲜活性。特别是高科技的飞速发展、电子传媒的广泛应用，从根本上更新了艺术生产、流通及接受的方式。再单纯从美学的或艺术的角度出发已不足以完整把握诡异多变的现实。由此要求学者们扩展研究视野、关注日常生活。西方“文化研究”在中国的引入和传播，成为文学研究新的理论创生点。 当然，中国文论的文化转向，是多种因素在具体情境中合力作用的结果，不纯粹取决于“文化研究”之一种因素。以“文化研究”为例的原因在于它的极富典型性。本文试图在超越二元对立思维的开放视野中，重点考察、分析西方“文化研究”在中国的影响，并涉及对它的反思。 “文化研究”带来中国当代文学研究上的一些新变，主要表现在：1、“大众丈化”研究上态度的转变。受法兰克福学派文化批判理论影响，对早期的中国大众文化，学者们多持怀疑、轻蔑、否定态度。随着威廉斯“文化唯物主义”的应用与霍尔“编码/解码”理论的提出，特别是费斯克的“大众”、“文化”定义、“两种经济理论”(“金融经济”与“文化经济”)对我国学者深有启发，逐渐改变了对大众文化的态度，由悲观走向积极。2、“去经典化”。“文化研究”重视对非经典文化的解读，重视边缘文化、亚文化等，由此带来以下变化：“挤压”经典的生存空间，消解文学“文本”概念，淡化经典意识，揭示经典背后的权力运作等等。“文化研究”开辟了分析经典的新语境。3、“反学科化”。学科设置在让人们“有法可依”的同时，也鼓励了单一化、技术化倾向，加之文论发展中的“语言学转向”影响、学者们建立具有普遍的解释有效性学问的雄，二，都导致学科日益封闭化。具体到我国，还有文学研究的过度“自律性”诉求和“本质主义”的作祟等原因。“文化研究”的跨学科性开启了传统学科框架背后的盲区，此外，“文化研究”体现了知识分子的自我觉醒及自身角色定位的转变:从探究深藏在文学隐喻背后的本质主义的解码者角色置换为在高度综合的文化视野中理解意义生成的介入者、}列释者角色。 “文化研究”的深刻性与个性只有在与其他理论的比较中才得以显现。1、与新历史主义的纠葛。二者都继承了马克思主义，都是一种跨学科研究，但由于新历史主义过分吸取解构主义的逆向思维精神，往往以二元对立方式看待一切，其积极介入历史的方式表现为“返回”个人情境，在现实面前有软弱无力之感。“文化研究”却注重整体全面的开阔视野，强调直面现实人生，积极介入当今社会生活。2。与庸俗社会学的区别。“文化研究”克服庸俗社会学对具体、微观社会文化的相对隔膜，关注比阶级关系更加细微的性别、种族关系。 在吸收、运用“文化研究”时，除注意中西语境的差异外，要警惕两种弊端。1、“文化研究”成为“文化考证”或“文化政治”。2、文化泛化或沦为一种智力游戏。鉴于“文化研究”在中国仍处于蓬勃发展之势，对它的反思检讨有过早之嫌。但可以肯定的是:对其简单粗暴地拒斥或不加辨析地全盘接受皆不是明智之举。更多还原

【Abstract】 Cultural Studies is the hot--theory in contemporary society. The Chinese scholars know these theories of Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall and John Fiske well and respond actively and enthusiastically. As an opening interdisciplinary theory or academic paradigm, Cultural Studies shows rich vigour. Its plural different way of thinking sets Literary Studies free from very narrow space. The feature of practicality of Cultural Studies facilitates literature to build the closer ties with society and life, and it counters and transcends Literary Studies which is more disciplinary, closed and excessively self-disciplined. Undeniabely, the demands of its returning and attaching importance to the interior on literature are revolutionary in 1980s in China. The literature in China has richness and freshness under the special and historical circumstances(the initinal forming of consumer society, the tendency of visual culture from marge to center, the emergence of "aesthetic generalities" , etc. in contemporary era). Especially with the very fast development of technology and widespread use of electronic media, the prodution, circulation and acceptance of literature and art are changed thoroughly. If taking aesthetic or artistic view purely, we could not seize the strange and changeful reality wholly, so the scholars have to extend the field of vision of studying and concern the everyday life. The western Cultural Studies with its introduction and circulation in China becomes the point of making innovation for Literary Studies.Of course, the "Cultural Turn" on Literary Studies in China is not only decided by Cultural Studies but also depends on many factors and specific circumstance. The reason is that Cultural Studies has very typicalness as a example in this thesis. Oncondition that transcending the thinking of binary opposition with opening dimentions, I try my best to investigate and analyse the important influence of the western Cultural Studies and the thesis involves reflection on it.Cultural Studies brings many new changes to Literary Studies in China. These changes are: 1. Turning of attitude on mass culture. With the effect of cultural critical theory of Frankfurt School, the scholars mainly take a skeptical, disdainful and deniable attitude to the early mass culture in China. The theories inspire the scholars in China including Williams’ s "cultural materialism" , Hall’s "encoding/decoding" and Fiske’ s definitions of the "popular" ," culture" and " two kinds of economy theory( financial economy and cultural economy)" which change the scholars’ attitude gradually from pessimism to positiveness. 2. "Decanonization" . Because Cultural Studies pays more attention to the reading of "non-canon" , marginal culture and sub-culture, there are many changes on "canon" : extruding of the vivosphere of "canon" , desorbing of the concept of literary "text" , weakening of the idea of "canon" , revealing of the operation of power behind the "canon" and so on. Cultural Studies produces a new field for analyzing the "canon" . 3. "Anti-discipline" . The installation of "discipline" keeps us taking actions according to the rules of it, but encourages the single and mechanic tendency at the same time. Furthermore, they lead to the closed discipline with the influence of "liguisitics turn" in the development of literary theory and the great ambition of scholars of setting up a scholarship for universal or effective explanation In addition, there are other factors such as excessively self-disciplined in Literary Studies and mischief of "essence" in China. The characteristic of interdisciplinary feature of CulturalStudies enlightens the blind area behind the frame of traditional discipline. Cultural Studies embodies the self-awakening of intellectuals and transformation of their roles: the replacement from the decoders of seeking the "essence" behind the metaphor of literature to interpreters or interventionists of understanding the formation of meaning in the greatly comprehensive "cultural context" .When compared with other theo更多还原