“革命文学”论争中的理论“误读”: 再论太阳社对藏原惟人“新写实主义”的引介与运用

The“Misreading”of Theory in the“Revolutionary Literature”Debate:Re-examining the Introduction and Utilization of Kurahara Korehito's“New Realism”by the Sun Society

在1928年中国左翼文坛爆发的“革命文学”论争中,太阳社率先译介了日本左翼理论家藏原惟人的“新写实主义”论,以此作为“新兴文学”重要的理论支柱。太阳社关注“藏原理论”,既是缘于新兴文学实践过程中自然产生的文艺理论诉求,又存在与创造社“理论竞备”的现实契机。而“新写实主义”在中国左翼文坛的批评实践及其演变轨迹,实际与太阳、创造二社同茅盾有关“革命文学”的论争相伴相生。在茅盾与钱杏邨的对话关系中,正是对于“新写实主义”之无意/有意的误读,部分造成了论争的错位、激化,并实质上影响了这一理论在中国的阐释路径及走向,“钱杏邨理论”与“藏原理论”之差异亦由此呈现。钱杏邨的理论取舍与得失并非孤例,而是折射出早期中国左翼文艺理论实践的普泛性困境。

During the“revolutionary literature”controversy that broke out in the left-wing literary circles in China in 1928,the Sun Society took the lead in translating and introducing Japanese left-wing theorist Kurahara Korehito's theory of“new realism”as an important theoretical pillar of the“emerging literature”.The Sun Society's concern for the Kurahara's theory is not only due to the demand for literary theory that naturally arises in the process of emerging literary practice,but also due to the realistic opportunity of“theoretical competition”with the Creation Society.The critical practice of“New Realism”and its evolution in the left-wing literary circles in China actually accompanied by the debates on“revolutionary literature”between the Sun Society,the Creation Society,and Mao Dun.In the dialogue between Mao Dun and Qian Xingcun,it is the unintentional/intentional misinterpretation of“New Realism”that partly causes the misplacement and intensification of the debate,and substantially affects the path of interpretation and direction of this theory in China,and the difference between“Qian Xingcun's Theory”and“Kurahara's theory”is also presented as a result.Qian Xingcun's theoretical trade-offs and gains and losses are not an isolated case,but reflect the generalized dilemma of early Chinese left-wing literary theory and practice.