伊格尔顿“文学事件”的三重涵义--兼谈作为书名的event

The Triple Connotations of Eagleton's“Event”inThe Event of Literature

伊格尔顿2012年出版的《文学事件》与事件哲学有没有关联?如果有,为什么伊格尔顿直到第五章才开始讨论event?为什么这些讨论仅仅局限于其中的一小节?为了回答这些疑问,我们不得不梳理一下他所运用的部分概念。伊格尔顿的"结构/事件"观不但借鉴了列维—斯特劳斯的神话研究以及保罗·利科尔的解释学,还参考了吉登斯的"结构化"以及伊瑟尔的"策略"概念。但是,伊格尔顿提出的文学艺术的"事件性"并不同于巴迪欧的"事件",倒是更接近于德里克·阿特里奇提出的"文学伦理学",因为文学艺术在伊格尔顿这里最终要产生实效,是一种自我批判、面向未来、敞开种种可能性的伦理活动,审美实践最终可以看作一种更高层面上的道德实践。而这种理解,既符合伊格尔顿的马克思主义者身份,也符合我们对他的既定理解与期待。为了完整把握"文学事件"这个书名,不妨把"文学的发生"与"文学的后果"的涵义也囊括进来。

Is there any connection between Terry Eagleton＇s The Event of Literature and the philosophy of event？ If any, why does he discuss ＂event＂ in the final chapter of this book？ Why is it confined in only one chapter？ To answer these questions, one needs to clarify the concepts he uses. His Structure/Event is based on Claude Levi-Strauss＇s mythology, Paul Ricoeur＇s hermeneutics, Anthony Giddens＇s ＂Structuration＂, and Wolfgang Iser＇s ＂Strategy＂. Nevertheless, Eagleton＇s ＂eventness＂ differs from Alain Badiou＇s ＂event＂, and is actually closer to Derek Attridge＇s literary ethics. As literature and art have to bring out actual effect, they are for Eagleton open for self-criticism, for the future, and for possibilities. Thus, aesthetic practices should be taken as moral practices on a higher level. This understanding is in accordance with Eagleton＇s identity as a Marxist. To comprehend the meaning of this book＇s title, it might be helpful to introduce the ideas ＂ significances of occurrence＂ and ＂consequence of literature＂.