二十世纪西方文艺批评理论

TwentiethCenturyWesternCriticalTheories二十世纪西方文艺批评理论ZhuGang朱刚上海外语教育出版社，20012005年第四次印刷IntroductionThissourcebookcomesoutofaneedforbasictextsofthetwentiethcenturyWesternliteraryandculturaltheories.Thecurrentvolumeismeantsolelyforpedagogicalpurposes,i.e.,forgraduatecoursesoncontemporaryWesternliterarytheory.Eachunitformsacritical“school”(inthebroadsense),startingwithacriticalsurveyoftheschoolunderdiscussion.Foreachcritic,thesourcebookprovidesasketchyintroduction,aselectionofthecritic’swork,somenecessarynotestothetexts(reducedtotheminimumforasmoothreading.),followedbystudyquestionsbasedontheessayselectedforbetterunderstandingandclassdiscussion,andfinallybooksandarticlesrecommendedforfurtherreading.ThebookchoosestoexamineinaroughlychronologicalordersomemajorWesterncriticaltheoriesofthetwentiethcentury,fromRussianFormalismintheearlydecadesto,forinstance,theCulturalStudiesinthenineties.Inadditiontoaclosereadingofsomecarefullyselectedtextsandasurveyofcurrentknowledgeinthisfield,thecourseseekstointroducestudentstothemajorapproachestoliterature,toshowwhatkindofknowledgeisinvolvedandwhatformsofinquiryexistinthisarea,howdifferentmeansofanalysisareused,andwhattheirstrengthsandweaknessesare.Thechiefobjectiveofthebookistoraisethestudents’awarenessoftheimportanceofbeingcriticalandofthecriticaltheory,discusswiththemsomeinfluentialspeculationsonandcriticalapproachestoliterature,andusethemintextualanalysis.Itwillconcentrateonanumberofquestions,suchasthelocusofliterarymeaning,thestatusofthetext,theroleofthereader,thefunctionoflanguageinliteraryexegesis,thereferentialityofliterature,andtherelationofliteratureandsociety.Thesequestionsareofgeneralinteresttothestudentsofliterature,andofspecialhelptoMAstudentsworkingontheirdissertation.Theselectionofcritics(theso-called“canon”)hasbeenmadeonthebasesoftheirrepresentativecharacterandtheiravailabilityinChineseuniversitylibraries.TheworksselectedareamongthemostdiscussedbyChineseliteraryscholarsandarehelpfultostudentsininterpretingliterarytexts.Theassortmentofcriticsintoschoolsisunavoidablyarbitrary.Barthes,forinstance,shouldbemoreproperlyputunder“Deconstruction”,andSaidmayalsobelongto“CulturalStudies.”Thebestpolicyistopaymoreattentiontotheideasexpressedintheessaysthantothelabelsassignedthem.Owingtolimitsofspace,theselectionsaretooshort,andthenotestooscanty,toensuregoodunderstanding.ItisrecommendedthatMAstudentswhoaregoingtowriteontheoryorPh.D.studentsofliteraturereadtheoriginalworkinitsentirety.Tounderstandourfieldofinquiry,aconcise,tentativedefinitionofterminologyisnecessaryattheoutset,howeverinsufficientanysuchdefinitionmayseemtobetoday.Firstandforemost,whatisliterature?Thequestionisextremelydifficulttoanswersinceliteratureseemstoincludeeverythingverballyororallyrecorded.Butthisisanimportantquestionbecausecontemporarycriticaltheorystartedwitheffortsatsuchadefinition.Thatdefinitionisanegativeone:i.e.,whatisitthatsetsliteratureapartfromnon-literature?Inotherwords,contemporaryliterarytheorystartedwithidentifyingspecificqualitiesthatmakeapieceofworkliterary,andallcontemporaryapproachestoliteratureareanswers,inonewayoranother,tothequestionofwhatliteratureis.Next,whatis“theory”?Asafieldofintellectualinquiry,theorymaybetakentobe“abodyofgeneralizationsandprinciples,oranidealorhypotheticalsetoffactsandcircumstances,developedinassociationwithpracticeinafieldofactivityandformingitscontentasanintellectualdiscipline.”Inotherwords,“theory”dealswiththingsonabstractlevel(generalizationsandprinciples),notintheirconcreteforms,thoughthisabstractionisbasedontheactualpractices.Forinstance,literary“theory”developsoutofinterpretationofconcreteworksofart.Itisanindependent“discipline”becauseithasitsownnature,scopeofinvestigation,andmethodology,thoughitismoreandmoredifficulttoidentifywhatthesereallyare.Mostimportantly,“theory”invitescriticismandinquiry,itselfbeing“idealorhypothetical.”Whatisliterarytheorythen?Simplyput,itis“speculativediscourseonliteratureandonpracticeofliterature.”Itmayincludereflectionsonoranalysisofgeneralprinciplesandcategoriesofliterature,suchasitsnatureandfunction;itsrelationtootheraspectsofculture;thepurpose,proceduresandvalidityofliterarycriticism;relationofliterarytexttotheirauthorsandhistoricalcontexts;ortheproductionofliterarymeaning.Butwhatisthedifferencebetween“literarytheory”and“literarycriticism?”Amostconciseanswerwouldbe:oneisconcernedwith“theory”whiletheother“practice.”Wellekinfactdefines“criticism”as“studyofconcreteworksofart.”“Criticism,”wemightsay,includes“describing,interpretingandevaluatingthemeaningandeffectthatliteraryworkshaveforcompetentbutnotnecessarilyacademicreaders.”Since“criticism”dealswiththeexperienceofreading,itis“notexclusivelyacademic,butoftenpersonalandsubjective.”Asimilarthoughinmanywaysdifferentconceptisaesthetics.Thedisciplineisconcernedwithliteraturefroma“philosophical”pointofview,stressingitsrelationtothegeneralconceptsofart,beautyandvalue.Ithaslimitedrelevancetopracticalliterarystudyor“criticism,”buthasstrongaffinitieswith“criticaltheory”asbothtendtotaketheworkofartas“autonomous”andlookforitsspecificities.“Scholarship”isasomewhatdifferentconcept.Itgoesbeyondthereader’sexperiencebyreferringtofactorsexternaltothisexperience,suchasthegenesisoftheworkoritstextualtransmission.Itisoftentoopositivistictobe“theoretical,”askingfordetachmentandrigorofaspecialist.Finally,“criticaltheory”inthisbookisusedinitsbroadsense,anumbrellatermforvariouscriticalapproachestoliteratureandcultureinthetwentiethcentury.ItsnarrowersensereferstotheFrankfurtSchooltradition,seengenerallyas“responsestothespecificallyemancipatoryinterestthatenterstheorderofaestheticandsocialpracitces.”ItistobenotedthatmuchofFrankfurttraditionhasmergedwithrecent“literarytheory”asthe“genericterm”whenthelatterbecomesmoreandmore“critical”innature.Somesuggestionsforhowtoreadcriticaltheory:i.Alwayskeepatanarm’slengthfromthetheoristsandtheories.Alwaysreadwithacriticaleyeopen.ii.Alwaysthinkoftheoryinrelationtoconcreteliteraryworksofartandtrytousetheoryintextualinterpretation.iii.Alwaysthinkoftheoryintermsofthesocialrealitythathasproducedit.Marxistperspectiveinthisrespectturnsouttobehelpful.Thefollowingreferencebooksarerecommendedforthecourse.Theyareanthologieswheremorerelevanttextsaretobefound,andintroductoryworksonthetheoriestobediscussed.Thesebooksmayalsoappearinthe“FurtherReading.”Anthologies:Adams,Hazarded.(1971),CriticalTheorySincePlato.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich,Inc.Adams,Hazard&LeroySearle(1986).CriticalTheorySince1965,Tallahassee:UniversityPressesofFlorida,Bate,WalterJacksoned.,Criticism:TheMajorTexts,HarcourtBraceJovanovich,Publishers,SanDiegoetc.,1970Borklund,Elmer,ContemporaryLiteraryCritics,2nded.,MacmillanPublishersLimited,HongKong,1982Davis,RobertConeds.(1998)ContemporaryLiteraryCriticism:LiteraryandCulturalStudies.NewYork:LongmanFokkema,D.W.&ElrudKunne-Ibsch(1977).TheoriesofLiteratureintheTwentiethCentury.London:C.Hurst&CompanyHandy,WilliamJ.&Westbrook,Maxeds.,TwentiethCenturyCriticism,TheMajorStatesments,TheFreePress,NewYork,1974Kaplan,Charlesed.,Criticism:TheMajorStatements,St.Martin’sPress,NewYork,1975Latimer,Daned.,ContemporaryCriticalTheory,HarcourtBraceJovanovich,Publishers,SanDiegoetc.Lodge,David(1972).20thCenturyLiteraryCriticism,London:LongmanGroupLtd.Newton,K.M.(1988).Twentieth-CenturyLiteraryTheory,AReader,London:MacMillanEducationLtd.---(1992)TheoryintoPractice,AReaderinModernLiteraryCriticism.NY:St.Martin’sP.Rivkin,Lulie&MichaelRyaneds.(1998)LiteraryTheory:AnAnthology.Oxford:BlackwellPublishersInc.Trilling,Lioneled.,LiteraryCriticism,AnIntroductoryReader,Holt,RinehartandWinston,Inc.,NewYorketc.,1970Introduction:Culler,Jonathan(1997).LiteraryTheory.Oxford&NewYork:OxfordUPEagleton,Terry(1985).LiteraryTheory,AnIntroduction.Minneapolis:UofMinnesotaP.Jefferson,Ann&DavidRobeyeds.(1986)ModernLiteraryTheory---AComparativeIntroduction.NewJersey:Barnes&NobleBooksLeitch,VincentB(1988).AmericanLiteraryCriticism,fromthe30stothe80s.NewYork:ColumbiaUPSelden,Raman(1989).AReader’sGuidetoContemporaryLiteraryTheory.NewYork&London:HarvesterWheatsheafSpikes,MichaelP.(1997)UnderstandingContemporaryAmericanLiterarytheory.Columbia:UofSouthCarolinaPWebster,Roger(1996).StudyingLiteraryTheory,AnIntroduction.London&NewYork:ArnoldIwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetotheMAandPh.D.studentsinmyclassalltheseyearsfortheirvaluablecontributiontothisbook.MythanksgoinparticulartoMsZhuXuefeng,MissTangXiaomenandMissShenXiaonifortheirsupportinthepreparationofthemanuscript.Z.G.SchoolofForeignStudiesNanjingUniversityJan.2001ContentsPageIntroductioniUnit1RussianFormalism11.V.Shklovsky,ArtasTechnique32.J.Mukarovsky,StandardLanguageandPoeticLanguage93.B.Eikenbaum,TheTheoryofthe“FormalMethod”134.L.Trotsky,TheFormalistSchoolofPoetryandMarxism17Unit2Anglo-AmericanNewCriticism231.T.S.Eliot,TraditionandtheIndividualTalent252.W.K.Wimsatt,Jr.andM.C.Beardsley,TheIntentionalFallacy293.TheAffectiveFallacy324.C.Brooks,IronyasaPrincipleofStructure345.A.Tate,TensioninPoetry38Unit3MarxistCriticism431.T.Eagleton,LiteratureandHistory452.G.Lukács,CriticalRealismandSocialistRealism543.R.Williams:Determination574.F.Jameson,NarrativeasaSociallySymbolicAct615.ThePrison-HouseofLanguage65Unit4PsychoanalyticalCriticism691.S.Freud,TheStructuresoftheMind712.TheOedipusComplex783.TheInterpretationofDreams824.CreativeWritersandDaydreaming845.L.Trilling,FreudandLiterature886.J.Lacan,TheMirrorStage91Unit5MythandArchetypalCriticism961.C.G.Jung,ThePrincipalArchetypes982.TheConceptoftheCollectiveUnconscious1023.N.Frye,TheArchetypesofLiterature106Unit6Structuralism1121.F.deSaussure,NatureoftheLinguisticSign1142.C.Lévi-Strauss,TheStructuralStudyofMyth1173.R.Barthes,TheStructuralistActivity1214.T.Todorov,DefinitionofPoetics125Unit7ReaderCriticism1291.W.Iser,TheActofReading1312.H.R.Jauss,LiteraryHistoryasaChallengetoLiteraryTheory1353.S.Fish,WhyNoOne’sAfraidofWolfgangIser1384.N.N.Holland,ReadingandIdentity1415.D.Bleich,TheSubjectiveCharacterofCriticalInterpretation145Unit8Deconstruction1501.J.Derrida,Structure,Sign,andPlay1522.Différance1553.J.HillisMiller,TheCriticasHost1584.A.P.Debicki,NewCriticismandDeconstruction1635.M.H.Abrams,TheDeconstructiveAngel166Unit9FeministCriticism1701.T.Moi,Sexual/TextualPolitics1722.E.Showalter,ALiteratureofTheirOwn1763.RepresentingOphelia1804.J.Kristeva,AboutChineseWomen185Unit10NewHistoricism1921.M.Foucault,TheStructuresofPunishment1942.S.Greenblatt,TheImprovisationofPower1973.J.Tompkins,SentimentalPower2014.N.ArmstrongandL.Tennenhouse,RepresentingViolence206Unit11Post-ColonialStudies2121.A.Gramsci,ThePrisonNotebooks2142.F.Fanon,BlackSkinWhiteMasks2173.E.Said,Orientalism2204.G.Viswanathan,MasksofConquest224Unit12GenderStudies2301.V.L.Bullough,Homosexuality,AHistory2322.A.Jagose,QueerTheory,AnIntroduction2363.M.Wittig,OneIsNotBornaWoman2394.E.K.Sedgwick,EpistemologyoftheCloset2435.J.Butler,GenderTrouble246Unit13CulturalStudies2521.R.Hoggart,TheUsesofLiteracy2542.S.Hall,CulturalStudies:TwoParadigms2573.R.Williams,TheFutureofCulturalStudies2614.M.Gottdiener,Disneyland:AUtopianUrbanSpace2655.D.Wright,RacisminSchoolTextbooks271Unit1RussianFormalismIntheheydayofhighmodernismemergedagroupofcollegestudentsandyoungfacultyinMoscowandPetersburg,Russia,whoseinterestwasclaimedtobeliteratureperse.Theywerefewinnumber,buttheirunmistakableinsistenceontheidealstatusofliterarystudyandstubbornpursuitforitsrealizationhasmarkedthebeginningofanewera,andproducedprofoundinfluenceonthesubsequentdevelopmentofcontemporaryWesterncriticaltheory.ItisgenerallybelievedthatFormalismstartedin1914whenViktorShklovskypublished“TheResurrectionoftheWord,”andendedwithhisessay“AMonumenttoScientificError”in1930.Organizationallytheformalistscenteredaroundtwodifferentthoughinterrelatedgroups.Onewas“TheSocietyfortheStudyofPoeticLanguage”(Opojaz),foundedin1916byShklovsky,BorisEikhenbaum,YuryTynyanovandothers,whoseinterestwasthegeneralprinciplesgoverningliteratureanddistinguishingitfromotherformsofverbalexpression.TheothergroupwastheMoscowLinguisticCircle,foundedin1915bylinguistslikeRomanJakobson,whichbasedliterarystudyonlinguisticsbyinsistingonthedifferentiationbetweenpoeticandpracticallanguage.Inspiteoftheapparentdifferencesintheirtheoreticalassumptionsandcriticalpractice,thetwogroupsshareonethingincommon,namely,to“placethestudyofliteratureonascientificfootingbydefiningitsobjectandestablishingitsownmethodsandprocedures.”Inotherwords,theywereunitedinanefforttofindtheinternallawsandprinciplesthatmakeapieceofliteratureliterary,ortheFORMofliterature(hencethelabelof“formalism”,thoughEikhenbaumforpoliticalreasonswouldratherprefertheword“specificity”)(Bennett1979:10).“Form”isanegativeword,methodologically,ifnotideologically.Thatis,theformalistsarguedatthebeginningforastrictseparationofformandcontentandmaderepeatedeffortstodiscreditthelatterasaproperobjectofliterarystudybyconcentratingexclusivelyontheformer.Thisradicalseparationposeddifficultproblems,theoreticalaswellasideological,forthelaterformalists,andforcedthemtomakecompromises.Theformer“extra-aesthetic”materials(historical,biographical,sociological,orpsychological)weretreatedasquasi-formalandputbackagainintothecategoryof“form”intermsofforeground/background.Herecontentwascalledupononlyasameansofforegroundingform,andthereforehadlostthevalueofitsownontologicalexistence.ForShklovsky,theremustbeaqualitywhichmadeform“formal”orliterature“literary.”Hereheandotherformalistsfacedadifficulttaskofdefiningthepeculiarityofliterature.ThispeculiarityhadbeentalkedabouteversinceAristotleinvaguetermslike“poetry”or“workofart,”simplybecauseitseemedtodefyanyconcreteexplication.Butfortheformalistaconcreteandunmistakableconcepthadtobefound,sothattheobjectofdiscussion(literature)mightbeputinamoreclearlydefinedtheoreticalframework.Shklovskymadeawisebreakthroughbyturningtolanguage,asliteratureisbasicallyaverbalart.Hearguedthatliteraturediffersfromnonliteratureforaqualitycalled“literariness,”(thoughotherformalistssuchastheMuscoviteswouldexpressitindifferentterms)manifestedinitspeculiaruseoflanguage,as“thelanguageofpoetryis...adifficult,roughened,impededlanguage.”Itistobenotedthatthisdoesnotmean“poetic”languageisnecessarilyadifficultlanguage.Theemphasishere,Shklovskyargued,isontheprocessofexperienceratherthanonitsfinalproduct,“theprocessofperceptionisanaestheticendinitselfandmustbeprolonged.”A.S.PushkinandMaximGorkyreversedthetraditionalliterary/ordinarylanguageandtherefore“roughened”theirlanguagebyintentionallymakingiteasier(Lemon&Reis1965:22,12).Similarcasesarenumerousindifferentliteratures.TheChinesepoetsinTangDynastysuchasLiPopushedforaplainandtersepoeticlanguageasareactiontothedominantornatepoeticstyle.Similarly,WilliamWordsworthandSamuelTaylorColeridgeintheEnglishRomanticismused“commonlanguageofthecommonpeople”forthe“spontaneousoverflow”offeelingsasagainstthemannerismoftheproceedingcentury.Whatfollowsthenisthemeansbywhichthis“literariness”istobeachieved.Theformalistsstartedwithverbalart,butforageneraltheoryof“specificity”applicabletoallformsofart(painting,dancing,photography,architecture,etc.),theyhadtocometotermswithamoreuniversalprincipleforthe“artfulness”ofart.Hencetheconceptof“defamiliarization”(ItissaidthatShklovskyoriginallyused“OCTPAHHEИE,”or“estrangement”inRussian.Butthetypesettermistakenlyturnedthewordinto“OCTPAHEИE,”meaning“sharpening,”abeautifulmistakeasitnowcomestomean“todefamiliarizesoastosharpen”).Shklovskymaynotbethefirsttoraisetheideaofdefamiliarization,P.B.Shelleyforinstancesaysin“ADefenceofPoetry”thatpoetry“makesfamiliarobjectsbeasiftheywerenotfamiliar.”ButitistheFormalistswhofirstmadeit,byasystematicaccount,apoeticprinciple.IftheOpojazcriticslookedfor“literariness”intheprocessofreadingexperiencewithindividualtexts,theMoscowlinguiststurnedtomoreconcreterhetoricaldevicesinstructure,rhymeandrhythmfor“poeticity.”RomanJakobson,forinstance,in“TheMetaphoricandMetonymicPoles”believesthatlinguisticsignsmaybeclusteredaroundthepolesofmetaphorandmetonymy.Realisminitsemphasisonreflectionismoremetonymicwhiletheavantguardliteratureismoremetaphorical,orpoetical.Thereisoneimportantdifference,however,betweentheOpojazcriticsandtheirlinguisticcounterparts.WhileShklovskytook“layingbaredevices”attheexpenseofalltheotherliteraryconstituents,JakobsonandMukarovskytriedtobemoreinclusiveintheirideaof“foreground/background”:aworkofartisconstitutednotbythesheernumberofdevices,butbydevicesarrangedinahierarchy.Inorderto“foreground”atemporarilystable“dominantdevice,”alltheothercomponentsoftheworkhavetobepresentandworktogether.WhileShklovskyfindsithardtoaccountforchangeinliteraryformsincethisformismechanicalandstatic,andanincreasednumberofdeviceswouldeventuallyleadtothedisappearanceofanynoticeabledevice,thedynamicnetworkofliteraryworkproposedbytheRussianlinguistsgeneratesatheoryofliteraryhistoriography:anychangeinliteratureisexplainedbytherearrangementofliterarydevice,withtheobsoletedeviceretreatingintothebackgroundtobeforegroundedagain,inadifferentformperhaps,inthefuture.LaterOpojazcriticstriedtoredresstheerrortheyhadmade.Shklovsky,forinstance,talksaboutliteraryhistoryintermsoftherelationofliteraryforms:thehegemonicformtakesonthetracesofthepreviouslydominantform,whichmayexpecttowinbackthedominanceagain.HereShklovskytoacertainextentsolvestheproblemofdefamiliarizationeventuallyturnedintoautomatization.Tynyanovalsotalksaboutthechangeinliteraryformintermsof“breaks”:literaryformsreplaceoneanothermorebystruggleandbreakthroughsthanbydirectinheritance.TheideaisinterestingbecauseitinawayanticipatesThomasS.Kuhn’sideaofparadigmshiftsandMichelFoucault’sideaofhistory.TheideaofbreakthroughmayalsoaccountfortheparticularperiodwhenRussianFormalismflourished,aperiodinwhichRussianliteraturetriedtobreakawayfromtheEuropeanliterarytradition,andRussiancriticismtodeviatefromsymbolism,realism,andnaturalism.ThemostseverecriticismofFormalismcamefromMarxism.Trotsky’sremarkthat“theformofartis,toacertainandverylargedegree,independent,buttheartistwhocreatesthisform,andthespectatorwhoisenjoyingit,arenotemptymachines”isavalidandforcefulcriticism.Bakhtinwasalsokeentopointoutthat“if,whenweisolatetheideologicalobject,welosesightofthesocialconnectionswhichpenetrateit(ofwhichitisthemostsubtlemanifestation),ifwedetachitfromthesystemofsocialinteraction,thennothingoftheideologicalobjectwillremain”(Bakhtin&Medvedev1985:77).TheformalistidolizationofanautonomoustextwaslaterdescribedbyFredricJamesonasfallingintothe“prisonhouseoflanguage.”Inthesamelight,theBritishMarxistTerryEagletondeconstructstheideaofanordinarylanguagesharedbythewholecommunity,since“[any]actuallanguageconsistsofahighlycomplexrangeofdiscourses,differentiatedaccordingtoclass,region,gender,statusandsoon”(Eagleton1985:5).Evenformaliststhemselvesrealizedthatisolationofliterarinessmightcreatemoreproblemsthantheyclaimedtohavesolved.Tynyanov,forinstance,observedin1924thatitwasalmostimpossibletomakeanabsolutedefinitionofliterature;Eikhenbaumalsoadmittedin1929thattherelationbetweenandthefunctionoftheconstituentsofliteraturewerechangingallthetime(Todorov1988:86).Erroneousasitwasandnotoriousasithasnowbecome,theheritageofFormalismistoolargetobeoverlooked.Thepost-structuralistStanleyFishredefinesformalismintermsof“beliefs,”andthesixteenformalisticbeliefshehaslistedcoveralmosteveryaspectofourlife(Fish1989:6).FokkemaalsoobservesthatalmosteveryliterarytheoryinEuropeisinspiredbyFormalisminonewayoranother(Fokkema&Kunne-Ibsch1977:11).Afterthemostdismantlingattackonformalismintheseventiethandeightieth,moreandmorecriticsrealizetodaythat“wefindintheactivityoftheOpojazgroupthechallengeintheirtryingtomakeoutofliterarystudiesahomogeneousdomain...Asweobserve,theysucceededtoaverylargeextent.Forthisreasonalone,itisimportanttoacceptthemostenrichingpartoftheirheritageandtocontinueit,ratherthantograspitsweakpointsandtocriticizethem.Thelatterisalwaystheeasiesttask”(Matejka&Pomorska,1978:279)TherearemanywaystoaccountfortheriseofRussianformalism.TheturbulentyearsunderTsarismhadturnedsomeliteraryscholarsawayfromanypoliticalcommitment,forinstance;theEuropeaninfluencessuchasaestheticism,intuitionismandSaussureanlinguisticshadfoundreadyfollowersinRussiatotheivorytoweroflanguage;andth