胡风与文学意识形态转折的碰撞——以四十年代的三次论争为中心(下)

The Collision between Hu Feng and Ideological Turns in Literature (Ⅲ)

胡风事件的举足轻重作用的三次论争,同时也构成了文学在40年代发生意识形态转折的三个关健环节,因此,胡风事件的历史根源也可以表述为胡风与文学意识形态转折的碰撞。文学的意识形态转折以40年代初期的“民族形式问题”论争为发端,在与胡风论争的左翼主流派一方,民族形式的讨论实际上是以《讲话》为集中体现的毛泽东文艺理论体系这一“集体智慧的结晶”酝酿成熟的过程,这就自然决定了胡风与左翼同仁的思想分歧具有意识形态的严重性质;40年代中期的“主观”论争以胡风和“才子集团”共同发起重庆反教条主义运动为起点,他们的本意是响应延安整风,但由于学术与政治意识形态逻辑的错位,实际上变成了对《讲话》的不自觉冲撞,因而他们反而成为由胡乔木主持的、名至而实不宣的重庆整风的对象;1947、1948年的香港批判是将1945、1946年对胡风的缺席批判公开化,同时也是以《讲话》文艺模式全面改造和规范文艺运动的意识形态询唤的发出和示范,而胡风则以《论现实主义的路》这一答辩表明,意识形态对其的询唤最终落空。

The three debates, which has mattered much in the Hu Feng incident, have constituted three key factors for ideological turns in literature of the 1940s, therefore the Hu Feng incident can be interpreted as the collision between Hu Feng and ideological turns in literature. With ideological turns in literature starting from the debate on 'the issue of national style' in the early 1940s, the debate over national style was, for the Left-wing literary school in debate with Hu Feng, actually the process of the formation and development of Mao Ze-dong's literary theory system, which differentiated Hu Feng from his counterparts in the Left-wing literary school. Beginning from the anti-dogmatism movement co-sponsored by Hu Feng and the 'gifted scholar group' in Chongqing in the mid-1940s, sponsors of the 'subjective' debate, who had intended to echo the Yan'an rectification movement, had subconsciously collided with the movement due to their different academic and political ideology. They have, subsequently, become the targets of the Chongqing rectification movement. The criticisms in Hong Kong in 1947 and 1948 had not only publicized the criticism of Hu Feng by default in 1945 and 1946 but also symbolized the call for remolding and standardizing the ideology of literary and artistic movements in line with the literary and artistic pattern acceptable in the Yan'an rectification movement. The response by Hu Feng in the article On the Road for Realism indicated the virtual futile appeal to him of ideology.