日本的阶级艺术论争:艺术具有阶级性还是超阶级性?——兼论对我国文坛的影响

Controversy about Class Art in Japan:Class or Supper Class nature of Art——And Influence on Chinese Literature

阶级艺术论争,是20世纪前期无产阶级文学阵营和纯文学阵营之间展开的文学论争。20世纪10年代后期,以本间久雄、大杉荣和加藤一夫为代表的无产阶级文学阵营,明确指出第四阶级的文学才是当下最重要的艺术,由此诞生了早期无产阶级文学的萌芽,但这时的认识局限于对'民众'和'民众艺术'概念的讨论上。进入20年代后,以中野秀人和平林初之辅为代表的无产阶级文学家认为,无产阶级代表了新的生产力和生产关系,无产阶级文化是高于资产阶级文化的。从无产阶级和资产阶级的性质对比来看,无产阶级劳动大众的精神和文学精神都比资产阶级高贵,因此无产阶级文学也是优于资产阶级文学的,这就肯定了艺术的阶级性。而以菊池宽、久米正雄和芥川龙之介为代表的纯文学主义者,则主张艺术本身所具有的自律,即超阶级性,认为若无产阶级艺术从属于无产阶级运动,那么无产阶级艺术也就不可能存在艺术至上主义思想。阶级艺术论争是之后展开的无产阶级文学运动的有力前提,也是我国20世纪30年代文学论争的理论源泉之一。

Class art-debate is a literary debate taking place between the proletarian literature group and the pure literature group. In the late 1910 s,proletarian literature camp,represented by Hisao Honma and Sakae Osugi and Kazuo Kato, made it clear that the literature of the fourth class was the most important art at the moment, which was the birth of the early rise of proletarian literature. But at that time, knowledge was limited to discussion of the concept of "people" and "popular art". After entering 1920 s,proletarian writers, represented by Hideto Nakano and Hatsunosuke Hirabayashi,advocated from the perspectives of Marx doctrine on production relations that the proletarian culture was superior than bourgeois culture. As well as from the property contrast between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, public spirit and literary spirit of working people were much nobler than that of the bourgeoisie. Thus, proletarian literature was better than bourgeois literature, which confirmed the existence of class nature of the art. However, Kan Kikuchi, Hisao Kume and Ryunosuke Akutagawa as the representatives of pure literary advocates of belletrist conceived that art was selfdiscipline. In other words, literature was beyond class nature. If proletarian art belongs to the proletarian movement, the ideology of art conciliarism could not be tenable in proletarian art. The art debate is a strong premise of proletarian literature movement,which is also one of the theoretical sources of Chinese literature debate in 1930 s.