对形式主义、结构主义的批评与反思(下)

Critique and Rethinking of Formalism and Structuralism(Part Ⅰ)

新时期以来,对于西方学术思想的介绍取得了很大成绩,但也存在一个问题,即许多介绍都不是立体的。立体性研究对于深入了解西方学术思想十分重要。俄国形式主义的领头人什克洛夫斯基1982年写了一本与其20年代的书同名的《散文理论》。他抛弃了当年贬斥内容的纯形式观点,承认了知人论世的重要性,甚至还承认了所谓永恒真理对于艺术的重要性,还强调了解时代、斗争与革命对于理解作品的重要性。与当年相比,什克洛夫斯基的政治立场与文学观的变化是巨大的。对于结构主义,什克洛夫斯基的态度是总体否定,但也有部分肯定。他还批评了结构主义不问实质只看表面相似的分类法,其实不问实质的缺点俄国形式主义就存在。俄国形式主义是回避本质,只看现象的。他又批评结构派滋生了许多术语,但滋生术语的情况在俄国形式主义那里也存在。英美新批评是与结构主义文学批评亲缘关系最近的流派,它们都是形式主义流派,都以作品为中心,都忽视作者。当然区别也是明显的,新批评注目于文本的细读,注重对意义的阐述与艺术的分析,而结构主义则研究作品是如何组织的、其叙事方式与话语方式如何。与韦勒克从统一性上看待布拉格学派和结构主义的关系不同的是,坚持英美新批评立场的乔纳森.卡勒,则对结构主义文学观作出了尖锐的批评,生动地体现了一种多元并存,又相互斗争的图景。乔纳森.卡勒的英美新批评派的立场是十分坚定的,他是站在英美文学传统的立场,坚持新批评派的观点,并以自外于以至于批判结构主义的态度来讲话的,所谓《结构主义诗学》,不过是划出了他讨论的范围,并非是他本人主张的表达。热奈特同意叙述作品可以从诸如思想性等角度来研究,实际上他是仍然坚持内容与形式的分离论的。托多罗夫对结构主义文学观的三个重要问题:释义与结构的关系、结构与文学史的关系、结构与审美的关系,作出了阐述,既力图维护结构主义文学观的一些基本论点,又想对遭人指责的无法辩解的缺点加以弥补,生动地体现了、典型地代表了叙述学兴起与建立的过程大体结束之际,叙述学家们的理论表现及其心态。托多罗夫将释义与诗学看成相互游离的两个方面,他的论述前后矛盾,反映了结构主义文学观的困境。由于结构主义诗学的内向性难以被克服,不能解决诸如与文学史、美学等方面的关系。由此,托多罗夫应对指责、弥补缺陷,以建立结构主义诗学的壮志,不得不伤感地陨灭了。

In the new period, the introduction to westem academic thoughts has got great achievements, but there is a problem, that is, many presentations fail to record in a three-dimensional way. Three-dimensional study is of vital importance for deepening research of western academic thoughts. Shkloveky the representative of Russian formalism composed in 1982 The Theory of Prose that shared a same book title he wrote in 1920s. He abandoned his pure formalistic view by which he denounced contents at that time, accepted the importance of ＂understanding one and reflect on oneg society＂, admitted so-called the arts＇importance upon eternal truth, and emphasized the role of times, struggle and revolution over the understanding of works. Compared with his previous points of view, Shkloveky differed a lot in his political and literary perspectives. As for structuralism, his attitude was negative on the whole, positive in some parts. He criticized the classification of strueturalism that focused on superficial similarity rather than crucial nature, which also existed in Russian formalism. Meanwhile, he also criticized glossaries derived in structuralists and the situation appeared in Russia as well. The New Criticism walked closely to literary criticism of structuralism, both of them represented formalist school highlighting works rather than authors. Their differences were obvious, i.e. New Criticism stressed at scrutinizing text, analyzing art and meanings, while structuralism emphasized organization and narration and discourse. Different from Wellek＇s unity attitude toward the relationship between Prague School and structuralism, Jonathan Culler the proponent of New Criticism had a sharp criticism on the literary view of structuralism, and so-called Structuralist Poetics was merely his scope of discussion, did not represent his propositions. Genette embraced that narrative work could be studied from such views as ideological content, and actually he still adhered to separation of content and form. Todorow raised three issues on literary view of structuralism： relations between paraphrase and structure, between structure and literary history, between structure and aesthetics. On one hand, he expounded basic views of safeguarding the literary concepts; on the other hand, he attempted to make up those weaknesses of literary view. During the booming and building process of Narratology, theoretical exhibition and mentality of narratological scholars were vividly and typically presented. Todorow treated paraphrase and poetics as two dissociative sides, and such contradictory argument reflected the embarrassment of literary view of strneturalism. Due to the insuperable introversion of structuralism poetics, the relation between poetics and literary history, and aesthetics can hardly be solved. Therefore, Todorow replied condemnation, mended weaknesses to make a resolution for establishing structuralism, and finally failed in vain.