【摘要】： “批評(píng)空間的開創(chuàng)”這個(gè)表達(dá)式在當(dāng)前指向兩度空間的內(nèi)涵：第一是指：在國(guó)內(nèi)，由于“現(xiàn)代性”概念的引入，知識(shí)分子以之為思考的路標(biāo)，根據(jù)各自不同的學(xué)科范式、各自不同的知識(shí)眼界和各自不同的價(jià)值判斷，形成不同的理論言述，它更多地是知識(shí)分子對(duì)社會(huì)現(xiàn)狀和歷史境遇反思和探索的個(gè)體性話語(yǔ)表達(dá)；第二是指：當(dāng)前，由于政黨所努力推進(jìn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)改革開放事業(yè)使中國(guó)已在多方位多層次融入了國(guó)際社會(huì)，但一個(gè)作為現(xiàn)代社會(huì)公共層面的知識(shí)批評(píng)空間并沒(méi)有完全開辟出來(lái)，因此，從事現(xiàn)代性批判的批評(píng)理論應(yīng)致力于形成一個(gè)批評(píng)的公共層面，使知識(shí)系統(tǒng)在商業(yè)市場(chǎng)基本上與政府行政分離開來(lái)并已形成世俗的商業(yè)文化空間之后，能實(shí)現(xiàn)理論批評(píng)與政治意識(shí)形態(tài)權(quán)力關(guān)系的再次分離，從而形成一個(gè)獨(dú)立和健全的理論批評(píng)空間。第二種內(nèi)涵是本文的理論主張。 本文分三個(gè)部分，第一部分作為本文的理論基礎(chǔ)，認(rèn)為西方的現(xiàn)代性批評(píng)有兩個(gè)理論根源，一是韋伯世俗化理論，一是康德批判理論，由這兩種理論根源所形成的批評(píng)范式都是現(xiàn)代性分析的有效模式，但后者更為深層地把握到了問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵。第二部分是本文的理論分析部分，，本文主要選取了楊春時(shí)、王岳川、汪暉、余虹和陳曉明這五位學(xué)者作為理論分析的對(duì)象，本文認(rèn)為，楊春時(shí)以二十世紀(jì)非理性的文學(xué)樣式及其批評(píng)體系作為文學(xué)和批評(píng)的現(xiàn)代性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是脫離事實(shí)根據(jù)的；王岳川以價(jià)值心性和道德理性的重建作為現(xiàn)代性批評(píng)的重心也脫離了當(dāng)前的社會(huì)和政治現(xiàn)實(shí)；汪暉一方面認(rèn)為現(xiàn)代性不是一個(gè)中性概念，它具有深刻的西方內(nèi)涵，一方面又認(rèn)為中國(guó)的社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)一定要與資本主義全球化聯(lián)系起來(lái)分析，這中間存在一定的矛盾；余虹則把現(xiàn)代性與后現(xiàn)代性兩個(gè)概念對(duì)立起來(lái)，極有可能掩蓋了現(xiàn)代性本身的多層涵義及其理論價(jià)值；陳曉明最終在認(rèn)識(shí)論的層面來(lái)解釋當(dāng)代文學(xué)和批評(píng)的走向，也沒(méi)有注意到批評(píng)空間自身獨(dú)立性的重要性。本文分析他們各自的基本觀點(diǎn)，找出他們理論視野的基本偏差，認(rèn)為他們的理論分析大致都可歸于“批評(píng)空間的開創(chuàng)”的第一層內(nèi)涵。因此本文在第三部分以法國(guó)思想家托克維爾的理論為基礎(chǔ)，通過(guò)分析德里達(dá)和�？碌挠^點(diǎn)，進(jìn)而指出現(xiàn)代性和后現(xiàn)代性本身是具有相通之處的，這種共同之處就是理論的徹底的批判精神，在這部分中本文提出并論證了批評(píng)理論要形成一個(gè)獨(dú)立的批評(píng)空間這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:At present, the expression "the creation of critical space" points to the connotation of two dimensions: the first is: in China, due to the introduction of the concept of "modernity", intellectuals use it as a road sign for thinking, according to their respective disciplinary paradigms. Different knowledge horizons and different value judgments form different theories and expressions, which is the individual discourse expression of intellectuals' reflection and exploration on the present situation and historical situation of the society. The second is: at present, as a result of the economic reform and opening-up that the political parties have endeavoured to promote, China has integrated itself into the international community in various directions and at various levels, but a space for intellectual criticism at the public level of modern society has not been fully opened up. Therefore, the critical theory of modernity criticism should strive to form a public level of criticism, so that the knowledge system is basically separated from the government administration and has formed a secular commercial cultural space after the commercial market is basically separated from the government administration. The relationship between theoretical criticism and political ideology can be separated again so as to form an independent and sound space for theoretical criticism. The second kind of connotation is the theoretical proposition of this paper. This paper is divided into three parts, the first part is the theoretical basis of this paper, the western modernity criticism has two theoretical roots, one is Weber's secularization theory, the other is Kant's critical theory. The critical paradigm formed by these two theoretical sources is an effective mode of modernity analysis, but the latter has a deeper grasp of the key to the problem. The second part is the theoretical analysis of this paper. This paper mainly selects five scholars, Yang Chunshi, Wang Yuechuan, Wang Hui, Yu Hong and Chen Xiaoming, as the objects of theoretical analysis. Yang Chunshi took the irrational literary style and its critical system in the 20th century as the modernity standard of literature and criticism, which was divorced from the facts. Wang Yuechuan took the reconstruction of value-heart and moral rationality as the focus of modernity criticism, which also separated from the current social and political reality. On the one hand, Wang Hui thinks modernity is not a neutral concept, it has profound western connotation, on the other hand, he thinks that the social reality of China must be related to the analysis of capitalist globalization, which has a certain contradiction. Yu Hong opposes the concepts of modernity and post-modernity, which is likely to obscure the multi-layer meaning of modernity itself and its theoretical value. Chen Xiaoming finally explained the trend of contemporary literature and criticism on the epistemological level, and did not pay attention to the importance of the independence of criticism space. This paper analyzes their respective basic points of view, finds out the basic deviation of their theoretical vision, and thinks that their theoretical analysis can be attributed to the first layer of connotation of "the creation of critical space". Therefore, in the third part, based on the French thinker Tocqueville's theory, through the analysis of Derrida and Foucault's point of view, the author points out that modernity and post-modernity themselves are interlinked. This kind of common ground is the thorough critical spirit of the theory. In this part, the author puts forward and demonstrates the view that the critical theory should form an independent critical space.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2004
【分類號(hào)】：I06

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 張旭東;后現(xiàn)代主義與中國(guó)現(xiàn)代性[J];讀書;1999年12期

2 楊春時(shí);試論20世紀(jì)中國(guó)文學(xué)的前現(xiàn)代性[J];文藝?yán)碚撗芯?1997年04期

3 楊春時(shí);“現(xiàn)代性批判”的錯(cuò)位與虛妄[J];文藝評(píng)論;1999年01期

4 余虹;五四新文學(xué)理論的雙重現(xiàn)代性追求[J];文藝研究;2000年01期

本文編號(hào)：2443911