“文学性”问题与文学本质再认识——以两种“文学性”为例

The Issue of Literariness and a Reconsideration of the Nature of Literature: On the Two Kinds of Literariness

目前文学理论界对于“文学性”问题的考量存在着歧见,其中很多问题需要重新认识。俄国形式主义与解构主义在20世纪一头一尾先后提出“文学性”问题。前者用“文学性”概念廓清文学与非文学的区别,旨在抗拒非文学对于文学的吞并;后者借“文学性”概念打破文学与非文学的界限,旨在倡导文学对于非文学的扩张。这就有了两种“文学性”。虽然二者都主张文学研究的对象在“文学性”而不在文学,但终究绕不过“什么是文学?”这一问题。对此问题的理解固然取决于文学自身的性质,但也取决于对文学的看法、需要、评价。当年俄国形式主义提出“文学性”问题,其文化冲动在于对历史文化派的否定;后来解构主义旧话重提,则与后现代的文化精神完全合拍。解构主义重提“文学性”问题,倡导文学向非文学扩张,只是在认识文学本质过程中的一个阶段和梯级,它为文学研究向更高阶段和梯级的升迁提供了铺垫。

Literary theorists disagree on the issue of “literariness,” a term that needs reconsideration. The term was used by Russian formalists at the beginning of the 20 th century and by deconstructionists at the end of the century. In the former case, the term was used to distinguish literary and non-literary works and to resist the annexation of literary works by non-literary works. In the latter, it was used to break down the demarcation between literary and non-literary works and to advocate the expansion of literature to non-literary domains. Therefore, there are two kinds of “literariness.” However, even though both take “literariness” rather than literature as the subject of literary studies, neither can avoid the question of “what is literature?” Our understanding of this question depends on our views of, requirements for and assessment of literature, in addition to the nature of literature itself. The Russian formalists raised the question of literariness to negate the school of historical culture. In raising the old topic once again, the deconstructionists were in step with the spirit of post-modernity. Their raising of this issue and advocacy of the expansion of literature to non-literary domains is simply another stage and rung in the process of our understanding of the nature of literature; it prepares us for advances to higher levels of literary studies.