王小波与村上春树反面乌托邦书写比较——基于马克思主义的批评视角

A Comparison of Wang Xiaobo’s and Haruki Murakami’s Dystopian Writing:A Study Based on Marxist Perspective

“浪漫骑士”王小波和“为了灵魂的自由”的村上春树均不同程度受到奥威尔《一九八四》的影响。王小波将个人体验融入作品中,以对《一九八四》的戏仿揭露了常用的精神控制的方式,凸显了带有人性温情的爱作为反抗手段的重要性,以轻盈戏谑的叙事风格和复杂的叙事结构完成了反面乌托邦的书写。而村上春树意在警示人们注意“逃避自由”心理机制对人的危害,同样作为反抗手段的爱则呈现出与死纠缠、与性分离、与宗教含混不清的特点,无法真正成为超越反面乌托邦世界的力量,其碎片化游戏的叙事风格令读者迷失于含混暖昧之中,遮蔽了对现实的批判和反思。以马克思主义的视域观之,两者存在着无视乌托邦精神价值的认知误区,为批判而批判的做法令两者作品的反面乌托邦书写呈现批判有余而反思不足的局限性。剥离了经济的、政治的、社会的属性的个体,所追求的只不过是假想中的独立和自由,无法深刻反思产生反面乌托邦的深刻根源,无法辩证地处理个人与集体(共同体)的关系,更无法回答现实的积极的自我主体性如何可能的问题。

Wang Xiaobo,known as“a romantic knight”,and Haruki Murakami"always pursuing the freedom of soul"were both influenced by George Orwell’s 1984 to different degrees.With personal experience infused into his works,Wang Xiaobo revealed the common way of spiritual control and highlighted the importance of resisting by the warm love of humanity through his parody of 1984,to finish dystopian writing in a relaxed and satiric narrative style and a complex narrative structure.Haruki Murakami intends to warn people of the harmful psychological mechanism of"escaping from freedom",with love also as a countermeasure,though it is characterized by entanglement with death,separation from sex and ambiguity with religion,thus failing to become power that truly goes beyond the dystopian world.His narrative style of fragmented games loses readers in vagueness and ambiguity;it therefore obstructs criticism and reflection on the reality.From the perspective of Marxism,both works show a cognitive misconception in ignoring the spiritual value of Utopia.Their critical intention has limited the dystopian writing in their works with excessive criticism and insufficient reflection.Individuals that were deprived of their economic,political,and social attributes pursued only imaginary independence and freedom,and they could neither reflect deeply on the profound roots of dystopia nor handle the relationship between individuals and the collective(community)dialectically,let alone answer the question of how realistic and positive self-subjectivity can be made.