后现代语境下文学创伤书写何以可能?

Is Trauma Writing Possible after Postmodernism?

以理查德·麦克纳利等为代表的创伤研究者质疑了文学创伤理论的合理性。作为一种回应,本文的基本问题指向的是文学创伤理论的理论基础,即“创伤的无法言说”论。这里有两大核心内涵与议题:一是创伤的再现危机;二是文学对于创伤再现的可能性与必要性。就美学根源来看,创伤的再现危机主要源自以利奥塔为中介的康德式崇高美学所表征的主体的消灭;就理论基础而言,创伤的再现危机与拉康意义上的象征秩序隐喻的语言自身的局限有关。本文认为,维瑟尔提出的集中营语言,以及克里斯蒂娃所说的诗歌语言,为文学再现创伤提供了可能性条件。文学创伤的美学意义在于,它不仅印证了弗里德伦德尔意义上的后现代美学的合理性与普遍性,而且回应了利奥塔基于后现代立场之上的崇高美学。

Some trauma researchers,such as Richard McNally,have questioned the validity of literary trauma theory.As a response,this essay points to the foundation of literary trauma theory,which involves the notion of trauma’s unspeakablility.There are two core issues under consideration:the first is the representational crisis of trauma;the second is the possibility and necessity of representing trauma in literature.In terms of its aesthetic roots,the representational crisis of trauma largely springs from the annihilation of the subject,as described in Lyotard’s Kantian aesthetics of the sublime.As far as its theoretical basis is concerned,the crisis of trauma’s representation has something to do with the limitation of language itself,shown in the Lacanian“symbolic order.”This essay argues that“Camp Language”suggested by Elie Wiesel,as well as Julia Kristeva’s notion of poetic language,makes possible the literary representation of trauma.The aesthetic significance of literary trauma is that it not only confirms the validity and universality of Saul Friedl?nder’s postmodern aesthetics,but it also endorses Lyotard’s postmodern aesthetics of the sublime.