接受美学在中国文艺学中的“旅行”：整体行程与两大问题

发布时间：2018-05-08 04:13

本文选题：接受美学 + 姚斯　；参考：《湖南师范大学》2010年博士论文

【摘要】：从20世纪80年代初以来接受美学的中国“旅行”已近30年。其间,它从西洋的“舶来品”逐步变成中国文艺学研究中独具个性的理论批评话语,并与中国问题对接,直接参与了中国新时期文论范式的转型。以往关于接受美学在中国接受历程的研究,有的学者关心接受史的全局,有的探究接受史的细部,不乏精炼之论和自觉意识。不过,比照接受美学在中国接受语境中的繁荣状况,中国学者对其接受史的研究总体来说相对滞后,还未深入到中西文论整体对话的层面。基于此,我们的选题借鉴萨义德“理论的旅行”模型提出“问题域研究模式”以“接受美学对当代中国文论建设作用何在?”为核心问题,首先探究接受美学在中国文艺学领域接受的整体行程。然后,在比较接受成果的丰富性和接受者问题意识的强度后,我们选取“重写文学史”、“中国古代文论的现代转换”两大问题域,探析它们和接受美学交融碰撞的复杂关联,深度展示中国当下文论话语独立性和民族化的转型历程。本文分为四个部分：第一个部分是导论,探讨选题的研究背景,主要包括以下几个内容：选题中“接受美学”和“文艺学”等关键词的阐释、选题研究的历史和现状、选题的来由和理论价值、接受史研究方法的运用和思考。第一编主要探讨接受美学在西方的兴起和在中国的理论“旅行”。接受美学是德国文学研究危机的必然产物。伽达默尔的阐释学美学和英伽登的现象学文论这两大理论来源决定了接受美学的整体架构和理论倾向。接受美学有力地推动了20世纪西方文论转向读者中心模式,但是它在理论和实践上的局限也是明显的。从世界范围看,接受美学的传播是我们接受这一理论的历史背景。从中国范围看,接受美学在文艺学领域“旅行”的整体行程体现为三大阶段：译介、研究和运用。第二编研讨接受美学与重写文学史的历史关联。狭义的“重写文学史”讨论为中国学者冲破旧的文学史观念引进接受美学打下了良好的思想基础。近30年来,在广义的“重写文学史”学术思潮中,中国学者为了解决“文学史悖论”引入接受美学“重构”中国文学史景观,形成了中国化的文学接受史范式,实现了两大历史性转向：一是由政治标准凌驾于艺术(审美)标准的文学史范式逐渐转向审美和历史统一的文学史范式,其中读者的接受活动发挥关键的调节作用。二是由作家作品为重心的文学史阐释体系转向以文本和读者的交流关系为重心的文学史阐释体系。同时姚斯的原初理论在中国“异质语境”中也被日益改造补充,逐步“中国化”。文学史范式的转变反映了文学史理论的更新,彰显了中国当代文论话语由工具性向自主化的转变。第三编主要围绕接受美学和中国古代文论的现代转换之间的接受史关联展开。由于接受美学和中国古代文论的某些相似性、接受美学对“中国问题”的方法论价值和中国学者文化心态的两面性等诸多原因,接受美学能够介入“中国古代文论的现代转换”议题。中国学者近30年不懈努力,在中西比较视域下借用接受美学对中国古代接受理论的诸多范畴命题进行了现代阐释,构成了一个历时性的序列,反映了中国古代接受理论逐步深化和日益自觉的发展历程。另一方面,在中西比较视域下中国学者逐步发现古代接受理论在文学要素的关系、接受活动特征和接受研究的思维方式、批评语体、接受主体、具体运作上的五大民族特征,并通过文化模子追踪法追溯五大特征背后的中西方文化根源。中国学人最终在历时性和共时性的交叉点上初步构建了富有东方文化韵味的接受理论体系,推进了中国当代文论的民族化进程。这不能不说是“中国古代文论的现代转换”的一项实绩。第二编讨论的“中国文学接受史”(主要成绩在中国古代文学接受史领域)新范式同第三编讨论的“中国古代接受理论”联系紧密。前者对中国古代文学接受现象的研究和对文学接受规律、趋势的总结,为后者的现代阐释提供了理论素材。反过来,后者的研究成果富有理论性和思辨性,可以深化我们对前者(中国文学接受史)的把握。可见两者相辅相成,前者是后者的前提和基础,后者是前者的延伸和深化。这样,论文第二编和第三编的内在联系就清晰可见。
[Abstract]:Since the beginning of the 1980s, Chinese "travel" has been accepted for nearly 30 years since the beginning of the 1980s. During the period, it has gradually changed from "foreign goods" in the western world to the theoretical critical discourse of Chinese literature and art, which is directly involved in the transformation of the paradigm of literary theory in the new period of China. In the study of Cheng, some scholars are concerned about the overall situation of the acceptance of history, some of which explore the details of the history of acceptance, without lack of the theory of refinement and consciousness. However, compared with the prosperity of reception aesthetics in the context of acceptance in China, Chinese scholars have lagged behind in the study of the history of acceptance in general and have not yet penetrated the level of the overall dialogue between Chinese and Western literature. Based on this On the basis of "what is the role of reception aesthetics in the construction of contemporary Chinese literary theory?" as the core issue, we first explore the overall itinerary of acceptance aesthetics in the field of Chinese literature and art, and then compare the richness of the acceptance of the results and the acceptor's meaning. After the strength of the knowledge, we choose "Rewriting the history of literature" and "the modern transformation of Chinese ancient literary theory" in two major domains, exploring the complex relations between them and accepting aesthetic blending and collision, and deeply displaying the transformation process of the independence and nationalization of Chinese contemporary literary discourse. This article is divided into four parts:
The first part is the introduction, which discusses the research background of the topic, mainly including the following contents: the interpretation of the key words of "reception aesthetics" and "literature and art", the history and present situation of the topic selection, the origin and theoretical value of the topic, the application and thinking of the research methods of the acceptance history.
The first part mainly discusses the rise of reception aesthetics in the West and the "travel" in China. Reception aesthetics is the inevitable product of the crisis in German literature. The two theoretical sources of Gadamer's hermeneutic aesthetics and Ingaden's phenomenological theory determine the overall frame and theoretical tendencies of reception aesthetics. In the twentieth Century, the western literary theory turned to the reader center model, but its limitations in theory and practice were also obvious. From the world wide perspective, the dissemination of reception aesthetics is the historical background of our acceptance of this theory. From the perspective of China, the overall journey of "travel" in the field of literature and art in the field of reception aesthetics embodies three stages: translation and research Study and use.
The second edition discusses the historical relevance of accepting aesthetics and rewriting the history of literature. The discussion of "Rewriting the history of literature" in a narrow sense has laid a good ideological foundation for the Chinese scholars to break through the old literary history concept and introduce the reception aesthetics. In the past 30 years, in the broad sense of "Rewriting the history of literature" in the broad sense, Chinese scholars have made a solution to the "paradox of literary history". The reception aesthetics "reconstructs" the landscape of Chinese literature history and forms the paradigm of Chinese literary acceptance history, and realizes two historical changes: one is that the literary history paradigm, which is overriding the standard of Art (aesthetic), gradually turns to the Literary History Paradigm of aesthetic and historical unity, and the reader's acceptance activities play a key role in regulating the literary history. The two is the literary history interpretation system, which focuses on the literary history of the writers and works. The original theory of Yao's original theory has been increasingly transformed and supplemented in the Chinese "heterogeneous context" and gradually "Sinicization". The transformation of the literary history paradigm reflects the renewal of the theory of literary history. The discourse of contemporary Chinese literary theory changes from instrumental to autonomous.
The third part mainly revolves around the connection of the acceptance history between the reception aesthetics and the modern Chinese literary theory. Due to some similarities between the reception aesthetics and the ancient Chinese literary theory, the reception aesthetics can be involved in the "China" and the two sides of the Chinese scholar's cultural mentality. The issue of the modern transformation of ancient literary theory. Chinese scholars have made unremitting efforts in the past 30 years. In the comparative view of Chinese and western, a variety of categories of propositions of Chinese ancient acceptance theory have been interpreted in the comparative view of China and the west, which constitute a diachronic sequence, reflecting the gradual deepening and increasingly conscious development of the Chinese ancient theory of acceptance. In the perspective of Chinese and Western comparative perspective, Chinese scholars have gradually discovered the relationship between the ancient acceptance theory in the literary elements, the acceptance of the characteristics of the activities and the way of thinking of accepting the study, criticizing the language, accepting the subject, and the specific operation of the five national characteristics, and tracing the cultural roots of the Chinese and Western cultures behind the five characteristics by tracing the culture model. At the end of the diachronic and synchronic points, people initially set up a system of acceptance theory rich in oriental culture and promoted the process of nationalization of Chinese contemporary literary theory, which can not be said to be a achievement of "the modern transformation of Chinese ancient literary theory".
The second edition of "the history of Chinese literature acceptance" (the main achievements in the field of Chinese Ancient Literature) is closely related to the "Chinese ancient acceptance theory" discussed in the third series. The former provides a theoretical element for the study of the reception of Chinese ancient literature and the trend of the acceptance of literature and the trend of the literature acceptance. In turn, the latter's research results are theoretical and speculative, which can deepen our grasp of the former (the history of Chinese Literature). The two are complementary to each other. The former is the premise and foundation of the latter, the latter is the extension and deepening of the former. In this way, the internal relations between the second and the third parts of the paper are clearly visible.

【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：I01

【参考文献】