本文選題：現(xiàn)實(shí)主義 + 總體��； 參考：《福建師范大學(xué)》2016年博士論文

【摘要】：關(guān)于盧卡奇的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義文論,一些學(xué)者都對(duì)他的有機(jī)總體觀持懷疑態(tài)度。正如布洛赫所說(shuō)：“盧卡奇總以獨(dú)立而彼此關(guān)聯(lián)的現(xiàn)實(shí)為前提,并且在這一現(xiàn)實(shí)中唯心主義的主觀因素雖然沒(méi)有它的地位,但代替它的卻是那個(gè)在唯心主義體系中、因而也在德國(guó)古典哲學(xué)中得到最充分發(fā)展的不間斷的‘整體’學(xué)說(shuō)”。的確,盧卡奇在其關(guān)于現(xiàn)實(shí)主義文學(xué)的論述中曾不止一次的強(qiáng)調(diào)文學(xué)要從有機(jī)總體立場(chǎng)出發(fā)來(lái)反映“客觀”現(xiàn)實(shí)。然而,當(dāng)人們?cè)诓粩嗟貜暮蟋F(xiàn)代主義的立場(chǎng)來(lái)批判盧卡奇的這種有機(jī)總體觀時(shí)候,人們似乎在無(wú)意之中遺忘了一個(gè)事實(shí),那就是盧卡奇的總體觀恰恰是在批判各種“非理性”總體觀的基礎(chǔ)上形成的。在盧卡奇看來(lái),由于資本主義社會(huì)的物化結(jié)構(gòu)總是能滲透到人類現(xiàn)實(shí)生活的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域,所以,任何一種局限在文學(xué)領(lǐng)域的批判形式都不可能對(duì)資本主義社會(huì)產(chǎn)生真正的批判效應(yīng)。資產(chǎn)階級(jí)文學(xué)自自然主義文學(xué)以來(lái),雖然都清醒地意識(shí)到資本主義的理性傳統(tǒng)對(duì)人的壓迫或壓抑,但是,由于它們只是關(guān)注現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中人的異化現(xiàn)象,而沒(méi)有正視人的異化現(xiàn)實(shí)本身,所以,它們始終沒(méi)有從“非理性”總體論的陷阱中走出來(lái)。當(dāng)然,在批判自然主義文學(xué)和現(xiàn)代主義文學(xué)的同時(shí),盧卡奇并沒(méi)有急于對(duì)這兩種文學(xué)樣式作出完全否定的論斷。盧卡奇認(rèn)為,自然主義文學(xué)和現(xiàn)代主義文學(xué)最大的貢獻(xiàn)在于它們把人類現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中多元性的一面清晰地展現(xiàn)了出來(lái)。不過(guò),在如何維系人類現(xiàn)實(shí)生活這種多元性局面這個(gè)問(wèn)題上,它們始終沒(méi)有提供相對(duì)合理的答案。盧卡奇認(rèn)為,在資本主義社會(huì)的物化結(jié)構(gòu)體系之內(nèi),文學(xué)任何一種多元主義的批判設(shè)想都是不可能實(shí)現(xiàn)的,因?yàn)橘Y本主義社會(huì)的物化結(jié)構(gòu)本身就是建立在“尊重”人類多元存在局面基礎(chǔ)之上的。當(dāng)然,在盧卡奇不斷強(qiáng)調(diào)文學(xué)應(yīng)該把批判矛頭指向資本主義體制的時(shí)候,他也沒(méi)有完全認(rèn)同斯大林時(shí)期的社會(huì)主義現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的觀點(diǎn),在《敘述與描寫》一文中,盧卡奇曾借批判西方自然主義文學(xué)的機(jī)會(huì)變向地批判了當(dāng)時(shí)的社會(huì)主義文學(xué)。本篇論文主要分為了五個(gè)部分：第一部分,主要論述盧卡奇現(xiàn)實(shí)主義理論的基礎(chǔ)即反映論。不可否認(rèn)的是,盧卡奇的反映論是其現(xiàn)實(shí)主義理論的根基。不過(guò),盧卡奇反映論不同于古典文學(xué)反映論的地方在于,他將古典反映論作了歷史化和具體化的處理；第二部分,主要論述盧卡奇現(xiàn)實(shí)主義文論中的總體論思想以及典型論思想。盧卡奇現(xiàn)實(shí)主義文論中的總體論思想和典型論思想是緊密聯(lián)系在一起的。盧卡奇認(rèn)為,文學(xué)要反映總體的社會(huì)歷史現(xiàn)實(shí),就需要訴諸典型人物。不過(guò),盧卡奇這里所說(shuō)的典型人物并不是像蘇聯(lián)三十年代社會(huì)主義文學(xué)所呈現(xiàn)出來(lái)的階級(jí)形象；第三部分,主要論述盧卡奇對(duì)自然主義文學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)。盧卡奇對(duì)自然主義文學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)主要體現(xiàn)在他的《敘述與描寫》一文中。盧卡奇認(rèn)為,文學(xué)要在形式方面反映總體的社會(huì)歷史現(xiàn)實(shí),其內(nèi)部的敘述與描寫需要達(dá)成辯證統(tǒng)一的關(guān)系。而自然主義文學(xué)之所以走向破產(chǎn)就是因?yàn)樗鼈儍?nèi)部的敘述與描寫沒(méi)有達(dá)成辯證的統(tǒng)一關(guān)系；第四部分：主要論述盧卡奇對(duì)現(xiàn)代主義文學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)。盧卡奇對(duì)現(xiàn)代主義文學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)是與他對(duì)自然主義文學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)緊密聯(lián)系在一起的。盧卡奇認(rèn)為,現(xiàn)代主義文學(xué)之所以走向破產(chǎn),主要也是因?yàn)樗鼈儍?nèi)部的敘述與描寫沒(méi)有達(dá)成辯證的統(tǒng)一關(guān)系；第五部分,主要論述盧卡奇的人民性思想。事實(shí)上,盧卡奇關(guān)于現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的論述歸結(jié)到一點(diǎn)就是關(guān)于“人民性”的問(wèn)題。盧卡奇之所以批判自然主義文學(xué)和現(xiàn)代主義文學(xué),就是因?yàn)樗鼈儗?duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的批判沒(méi)有與廣大人民的生活有機(jī)聯(lián)系在一起,而盧卡奇之所以高度評(píng)價(jià)古典現(xiàn)實(shí)主義文學(xué)就是因?yàn)樗鼈儗?duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的批判是與廣大人民的生活深刻聯(lián)系在一起的。
[Abstract]:On Lukacs's realistic literary theory, some scholars are skeptical about his organic general view. As Bloch said, "Lukacs is always on the premise of independent and interrelated reality, and the subjective factor of idealism in this reality has no position, but it is the idealist system instead of it." Therefore, in the German classical philosophy, the uninterrupted "holism" theory has been developed most fully. Indeed, in his discussion of realistic literature, Lukacs had more than once emphasized that literature should reflect the "objective" reality from an organic overall standpoint. However, when people are constantly from the position of Postmodernism When criticizing this organic view of Lukacs, people seem to be inadvertently oblivious to the fact that Lukacs's overall view is precisely based on criticizing all kinds of "irrational" outlook. In Lukacs's view, the materialized structure of capitalist society can always permeate the various human real life. As a result, any critical form confined to the field of literature can not have a real critical effect on the capitalist society. Since the bourgeois literature has been conscious of the oppression or oppression of the rational tradition of capitalism, although they are only concerned with the real people, the bourgeois literature has been only concerned with the people in the real life. The alienation phenomenon is not to face the alienation reality itself, so they never come out of the trap of "irrational" overall theory. Of course, while criticizing naturalism and modernist literature, Lukacs is not eager to make a complete negation of the two literary styles. Lukacs thinks naturalism is a naturalism. The greatest contribution of literature and modernist literature is that they clearly show the diversity of human life. However, they have never provided a relatively reasonable answer to the question of how to maintain the pluralism of human life. Luca, in the view of the materialized structure of the capitalist society. Within the Department, any kind of critical assumption of pluralism in literature cannot be realized, because the materialized structure of the capitalist society is based on the "respect" of human pluralism. Of course, when Lukacs constantly emphasizes that literature should point the critical spear to the capitalist system, he is not finished. In the "narration and description >", Lukacs once criticized the socialist literature of the time by criticizing the Western Naturalism Literature. This paper is divided into five parts: the first part, the main part is to discuss the basis of Lukacs's realism theory. It is undeniable that Lukacs's theory of realism is the foundation of his theory of realism. However, the place where Lukacs's theory of reflection is different from the theory of classical literature is that he treats the classical theory of reflection as a historical and concrete treatment; the second part mainly discusses the general theory and the canon of Luca's literary theory of strange realism. The idea of type theory. The general theory and the typical theory of Lukacs's realism are closely linked. Lukacs believes that literature needs to resort to typical characters to reflect the overall social and historical reality. However, the typical characters described here by Lukacs are not presented as the Soviet Socialist Literature of the Soviet Union in 30s. The class image of the third part, the third part, mainly discusses the evaluation of naturalism literature. Lukacs's evaluation of naturalism literature is mainly reflected in his "narration and description". Lukacs believes that literature should reflect the overall social and historical reality in form, and the internal narration and description need to be dialectical unity. The reason why the naturalist literature goes bankrupt is that there is no dialectical and unified relationship between their narration and description; the fourth part mainly discusses Lukacs's evaluation of modernist literature. Lukacs's evaluation of modernist literature is closely related to his assessment of the naturalistic literature. Lukacs believes that the reason why the modernist literature goes bankrupt is mainly because they have not reached a dialectical unity of narration and description; the fifth part mainly discusses Lukacs's people's thought. In fact, Lukacs's discussion of realism is attributed to the question of "people". Luca The reason why strange criticism of naturalism and modernist literature is that their criticism of reality has not been associated with the lives of the vast majority of the people, and the reason why Lukacs highly appraised classical realism literature is because their criticism of reality is closely linked with the lives of the people.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：福建師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：I0
，

本文編號(hào)：1805912