本文選題：西方馬克思主義 + 美學(xué)��； 參考：《四川大學(xué)》2003年博士論文

【摘要】： 本文主要研究布萊希特，本雅明、馬謝雷和伊格爾頓的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)思想，并將之置于整個(gè)西方馬克思主義的背景下，闡釋和比較其演變和異同。全文共分四部分。 在《導(dǎo)論》中，提出文學(xué)生產(chǎn)思想在不同的文學(xué)批評(píng)派別中，有著不同的含義。文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論大體上可劃分為三大類：一是文學(xué)社會(huì)學(xué)；其二是文化研究；其三是西方馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)。文學(xué)社會(huì)學(xué)的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論主要從社會(huì)學(xué)角度考察文學(xué)生產(chǎn)的社會(huì)機(jī)制，這種文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論的代表是法國(guó)社會(huì)學(xué)家羅貝爾·埃斯卡皮，文化研究對(duì)文化生產(chǎn)的考察，集中于消費(fèi)和流通領(lǐng)域，西方馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論是要避開(kāi)傳統(tǒng)馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)的經(jīng)濟(jì)決定論，還原論、反映論，以及由基礎(chǔ)和上層建筑模式所引發(fā)的種種問(wèn)題，從生產(chǎn)角度出發(fā)，建立一種新的馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)。在此，本文辯析了上述三種文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論的異同，提出，文學(xué)社會(huì)學(xué)由于其方法和理論前提的局限，其文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論更多的是一種對(duì)文學(xué)的社會(huì)學(xué)研究，，文化研究在放棄了早期的馬克思主義范式后，轉(zhuǎn)向后結(jié)構(gòu)主義，文化研究的政治激進(jìn)性建基于后結(jié)構(gòu)主義的主體性之上。文化研究對(duì)文學(xué)生產(chǎn)的關(guān)注，是為了在文化制品的消費(fèi)和流通領(lǐng)域，尋找到在后革命時(shí)代抵抗的可能性，文化研究的這種政治激進(jìn)性，使之不同于文學(xué)社會(huì)學(xué)的研究，西方馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)與文學(xué)社會(huì)學(xué)的區(qū)別在于，后者堅(jiān)持將社會(huì)作為自然的事實(shí)，采取實(shí)證主義的價(jià)值中立方式進(jìn)行研究，而前者堅(jiān)持社會(huì)是人類勞動(dòng)實(shí)踐的產(chǎn)物。由此，馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)具有鮮明的政治功利性。馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)與文化研究的區(qū)別表現(xiàn)在，馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)強(qiáng)調(diào)階級(jí)和革命主體性，這種主體性不同于文化研究建立于拉康思想上的分裂的后現(xiàn)代主 體性。 本文第一章研究布萊希特的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)思想，指出布萊希特的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論建 立于柯?tīng)柺⿲?duì)馬克思主義的特定理解上，柯?tīng)柺⿵?qiáng)調(diào)從晚期馬克思、即《資本 論》的馬克思出發(fā)來(lái)理解馬克思主義，柯?tīng)柺╅_(kāi)辟了一條從經(jīng)濟(jì)角度來(lái)理解馬 克思主義的道路�？�?tīng)柺┱J(rèn)為，要改變社會(huì)，就必須改變一個(gè)社會(huì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)， 同時(shí)，柯?tīng)柺┱J(rèn)為觀念是一種現(xiàn)實(shí)存在，觀念的變革是現(xiàn)實(shí)革命的一個(gè)組成部 分。布萊希特在柯?tīng)柺┑乃枷胗绊懴拢瑥?qiáng)調(diào)文學(xué)是社會(huì)生產(chǎn)的一部分，強(qiáng)調(diào)文 學(xué)對(duì)于社會(huì)的主動(dòng)的建構(gòu)作用，要求對(duì)資產(chǎn)階級(jí)藝術(shù)進(jìn)行功能轉(zhuǎn)換，以實(shí)現(xiàn)服 務(wù)于人民的目的。布萊希特的生產(chǎn)美學(xué)開(kāi)辟了一條在傳統(tǒng)馬克思主義的基礎(chǔ)與 上層建筑模式之外來(lái)研究文學(xué)的道路，將文學(xué)作為社會(huì)生產(chǎn)的一部分，由此奠 定了馬克思主義文學(xué)批評(píng)中文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論的基礎(chǔ)。本章還單獨(dú)研究了布萊希特生 產(chǎn)美學(xué)思想在其史詩(shī)劇理論和表現(xiàn)主義論爭(zhēng)中的體現(xiàn)。 第二章研究本雅明的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)思想，指出本雅明三十年代的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)思想 是特定歷史條件的產(chǎn)物。為了抵抗法西斯主義，本雅明強(qiáng)調(diào)美學(xué)的政治化，美 學(xué)政治化的主要內(nèi)容是強(qiáng)調(diào)文學(xué)的生產(chǎn)屬性，要求對(duì)藝術(shù)進(jìn)行功能轉(zhuǎn)換，本雅 明繼承了布萊希特的生產(chǎn)美學(xué)思想，同時(shí)對(duì)其作出其出了重大的推進(jìn)，其一、 本雅明提出文學(xué)技術(shù)與社會(huì)生產(chǎn)技術(shù)的同一性，由此，布萊希特的生產(chǎn)美學(xué)得 到了具體的表述，文學(xué)與整個(gè)社會(huì)生產(chǎn)具有了直接的關(guān)聯(lián)性;其二、本雅明提 出了文學(xué)生產(chǎn)力問(wèn)題，文學(xué)生產(chǎn)力既強(qiáng)調(diào)了文學(xué)與社會(huì)的關(guān)系，又強(qiáng)調(diào)了文學(xué) 的獨(dú)立性，后一思想為伊格爾頓所繼承。此外，本章澄清了對(duì)本雅明文學(xué)生產(chǎn) 思想的一些誤解。如本雅明的有韻藝術(shù)與無(wú)韻藝術(shù)的區(qū)分并不是一個(gè)僅僅涉及 藝術(shù)發(fā)展的概念，有韻與無(wú)韻既是一個(gè)歷時(shí)的概念，也是一個(gè)共時(shí)的概念。 第三章研究阿爾都塞和馬謝雷的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)思想。指出馬謝雷的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論 是建立在阿爾都塞的結(jié)構(gòu)馬克思主義基礎(chǔ)上。阿爾都塞認(rèn)為每一社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)都是 由經(jīng)濟(jì)、政治、意識(shí)形態(tài)等不同的層次構(gòu)成，每一層次都是一種實(shí)踐行為，同 時(shí)各個(gè)層次之間的關(guān)系是一種結(jié)構(gòu)因果關(guān)系，經(jīng)濟(jì)層次是起最終決定作用的層 次。阿爾都塞的思想改寫(xiě)了馬克思主義基礎(chǔ)與上層建筑的理論，意識(shí)形態(tài)和上 層建筑并不是經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)的反映或表現(xiàn)，它們具有自己獨(dú)立的作用;其次，阿爾 都塞所說(shuō)的實(shí)踐，是在物質(zhì)生產(chǎn)的意義上，即通過(guò)勞動(dòng)，并運(yùn)用勞動(dòng)工具對(duì)原 材料的加工改造，因此，意識(shí)形態(tài)的實(shí)踐就是意識(shí)形態(tài)的生產(chǎn)，文學(xué)作為一種 意識(shí)形態(tài)實(shí)踐，也是一種對(duì)意識(shí)形態(tài)的生產(chǎn)，阿爾都塞和馬謝雷認(rèn)為，文學(xué)以 意識(shí)形態(tài)為原料，文學(xué)在其生產(chǎn)過(guò)程中，通過(guò)其形式機(jī)制，揭示了意識(shí)形態(tài)的 邊界和限制，他們同時(shí)強(qiáng)調(diào)，文學(xué)自身并不能意識(shí)到自己對(duì)于意識(shí)形態(tài)的暴露， 只有科學(xué)的批評(píng)才能將這種暴露變現(xiàn)真正的知識(shí)。馬謝雷的文學(xué)塵產(chǎn)論建立于 早期阿爾都塞的思想上，由此具有阿爾都塞早期過(guò)分理性化的錯(cuò)誤。 第四章探討伊格爾頓的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論。伊格爾頓的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)論綜合吸收了阿 爾都塞、馬謝雷，本雅明的思想和雷蒙德·威廉斯的文化唯物主義，伊格爾頓 鑒于阿爾都塞和馬謝雷思想中的抽象化和形式主義危險(xiǎn)，在兩個(gè)方向上對(duì)阿爾 都塞和馬謝雷的文學(xué)生產(chǎn)思想進(jìn)行了修正。首先、伊格爾頓將作為意識(shí)形態(tài)生 產(chǎn)的文學(xué)與作為社會(huì)物質(zhì)生產(chǎn)的文學(xué)結(jié)
[Abstract]:This article mainly studies the literary production thought of Bly Hitt, Walter Benjamin, Ma Shele and Eagleton, and puts it in the context of the whole western Marx doctrine, explaining and comparing its evolution and similarities and differences. The full text is divided into four parts.
In introduction, the idea of literary production has different meanings in different literary criticism factions. In general, the theory of literary production can be divided into three categories: one is the sociology of literature, the other is the cultural study, and the third is the literary criticism of Western Marx. The literary production theory of literary sociology is mainly viewed from the sociological perspective. The social mechanism of literary production, the representative of the literary production theory, is Robert Escarpit, a French sociologist. The study of cultural production is focused on the field of consumption and circulation. The literary production theory of Western Marx's literary criticism is to avoid the economic determinism of the traditional Marx literary criticism, the reductionism and the contrary. As well as a variety of problems arising from the basic and superstructure models, a new Marx literary criticism is set up from the angle of production. Here, this article analyses the similarities and differences between the three theories of literary production, and puts forward that the literary sociology is more of a kind of essay due to its limitations in its methods and theoretical premises. The study of sociology, after the abandonment of the early Marx paradigm, turned to post structuralism, and the political radicalization of cultural studies was based on the subjectivity of post structuralism. Cultural research was concerned with literary production in order to find resistance in the post revolution era in the field of cultural products' consumption and circulation. It is possible that the political radicalization of cultural research makes it different from the study of literary sociology. The difference between Western Marx's literary criticism and literary sociology is that the latter insists on taking society as a natural fact and taking positivist value neutral way to study, while the former insists that society is the production of human labor practice. Thus, Marx's literary criticism has distinct political utilitarianism. The distinction between Marx's literary criticism and cultural studies shows that Marx's literary criticism emphasizes class and revolutionary subjectivity, which is different from the split postmodern owners of cultural studies on Lacan thought.
Body nature.
The first chapter studies Bly Hitt's thought of literary production and points out Bly Hitt's theory of literary production.
Based on Karl's specific understanding of Marx doctrine, Karl emphasized from late Marx, that is, capital.
Marx started to understand Marx doctrine, and Karl opened up a horse to understand horses from an economic point of view.
Kyth's way of thinking. Karl believes that to change society, we must change the economic structure of a society.
At the same time, Karl thought that the idea is a realistic existence, and the change of ideas is a component part of the realistic revolution.
Bly Hitt, under the influence of Karl's thought, emphasized that literature is a part of social production.
The active role of learning in society requires the transformation of the functions of bourgeois art in order to realize its function.
Bly Hitt's production aesthetics opened up a foundation for traditional Marx doctrine.
Outside the superstructure mode, we study the road of literature and regard literature as a part of social production.
The foundation of Marx's literary criticism on the production of Chinese students was established. This chapter also studied Bly Hitt Sen separately.
The aesthetics of production is embodied in the controversy between epic theory and expressionism.
The second chapter studies Walter Benjamin's thought of literary production and points out Walter Benjamin's thought of literary production in the 30s.
In order to resist fascism, Walter Benjamin emphasized the politicization and aesthetics of aesthetics.
The main content of politicization is to emphasize the production attribute of literature and to transform the function of art.
Ming inherited Bly Hitt's thought of production aesthetics, and made great progress to it.
Walter Benjamin put forward the identity of literary technology and social production technology, so Bly Hitt's aesthetics of production was obtained.
In a concrete way, literature is directly related to the whole social production; secondly, Walter Benjamin mentioned.
With the issue of literary productivity, literary productivity emphasizes the relationship between literature and society, and emphasizes literature.
The latter is inherited by Eagleton. In addition, this chapter clarifies the production of Walter Benjamin's literature.
Some misunderstandings of thought, such as the distinction between Walter Benjamin's rhyme art and rhyme art, are not merely involved.
The concept of artistic development has rhyme and rhyme as both a diachronic concept and a synchronic concept.
The third chapter studies Al Du Jose and Masera's thought of literary production, and points out Masera's theory of literary production.
It is based on Al Du Jose's structural Marx doctrine. Al Du Jose believes that every social structure is
By economic, political, ideological and other different levels, each level is a kind of practical behavior.
The relationship between different levels is a structural causal relationship, and the economic level is the final decision.
Althusser's thought rewrote the theory of Marx's foundation and superstructure, ideology and above.
Tier buildings are not the reflection or expression of the economic foundation. They have their own functions; secondly, al.
The practice mentioned by Tucson is in the sense of material production, that is, through labor and the use of labor tools.
Therefore, the practice of ideology is the production of ideology, and literature as a kind of
Ideological practice is also a kind of production of ideology. Al Du Jose and Masera believe that literature is based on ideology.
Ideology is the raw material. In its production process, literature reveals its ideology through its formal mechanism.
At the same time, they emphasized that literature itself is not aware of its exposure to ideology.
Only scientific criticism can turn this revelation into real knowledge.
In early Al Du Jose's thought, Al Du Jose's early rationalization was wrong.
The fourth chapter discusses Eagleton's theory of literary production. Eagleton's theory of literary production absorbs a lot.
Althusser, Ma Shai Lei, Walter Benjamin's thought and Raymond Williams's cultural materialism, Eagleton
In view of the abstract and formalistic dangers in Al Du Jose and Ma shrey's thinking, Al is in two directions.
Masera's literary production thought has been revised. First of all, Eagleton will be an ideological student.
The literature produced and the literary knot as the material production of society.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：四川大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2003
【分類號(hào)】：I02

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 陳吉榮;;論改寫(xiě)理論在中西文學(xué)史與翻譯研究中的作用[J];文藝?yán)碚撗芯?2008年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 劉桂蘭;論重譯的世俗化取向[D];上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué);2011年

2 肖寒;革命的政治批評(píng)[D];首都師范大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 冉曉芹;伊格爾頓《理論之后》研究[D];西南大學(xué);2007年

2 蘇建華;布萊希特的馬克思主義戲劇美學(xué)思想研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2012年

3 楊文琴;論特雷·伊格爾頓的作者觀[D];湘潭大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：1819874