当前位置: 首页>博士论文>资源详情
“后理论”的文学转向
中文摘要

本文主要考察了“后理论”中的文学转向的现象。第一章首先介绍了什么是“后理论”中的“理论”,并对“理论”与语言学、“理论”与历史审美的文论以及“理论”与文学之间的关系进行了梳理,意在探明语言论转向影响之下“理论”对文学以及文学研究的影响,强调“理论”不是对意义或价值的研究,而是对意义或价值产生背后的、话语的运作机制的研究。第二章介绍了“后理论”是什么,并对“后理论”中的三个走向加以阐述。从对“理论”的不同态度出发,“后理论”中有三种观点:抵制“理论”,继续“理论”以及改进“理论”;其中改进“理论”又可分为回到“大理论”和走向“小理论”这两个方向。改进“理论”是“后理论”中的主流,回到“大理论”是希望继续“理论”对大问题的探讨,走向“小理论”则更重视对局部和细节问题的反思。论文的后三章从文学的角度出发考察了“后理论”中的三种文学转向。第四章探讨一种回归文学的吁求,文学研究在其中呈现出从社会政治研究向文学文本研究的位移;以文化、性别、身份、族裔等为主要对象的那些理论受到了文学捍卫者的挑战,有关意义、价值、审美等问题的探讨再度复兴。这一转向体现了文学理论对文学本身的关注和怀恋,也是对有些理论偏离文学本身的质疑和警惕,总的来说是向“理论”之前的一种回归。第五章探讨了非文学研究领域内的各种理论的文学转向。“理论”改变了传统意义上的学科概念,不同学科的问题在“理论”之后都可以被看作是语言的问题,而作为语言的文学也以其特有的方式给不同的理论带去了启示。这章以玛莎·努斯鲍姆、理查德·罗蒂、海登·怀特等人的著述为例,分析了文学对法学、哲学和历史学的重要影响。在文学的跨学科之旅中,不仅经典的文学作品受到广泛的重视,文学的各种形态也被化用到不同领域的学理建设之中,“理论”对文学的研究对它们来说十分重要,而这些领域的研究也反过来影响了“理论”和文学,促进了对“理论”的反思与改进,并进一步的拓展了文学研究的影响和边界。最后一章讨论的是“理论”对内在于自身的文学性的探索。乔纳森·卡勒发现了“理论”中的文学性以及文学具有的理论功能,认为文学更有利于思考;大卫·辛普森的“学术后现代”表明,“理论”源起于文学,文学“统治”了“理论”;詹姆斯·伍德的专栏式写作则为“理论”与文学的结合提供了适用于当前学术文化背景的一个范例。这一转向消解了“理论”和文学之间的边界,给“理论”和文学的未来指出了一个新的方向,对“后理论”的探索来说最有启发性。总的来说, “后理论”的文学转向在反思“理论”的同时更新了文学的边界,为文学研究与“理论”的未来提供了可资参考的意见与建议。 关键词:“理论”,“后理论”,文学转向,语言论转向,文学理论,文学

英文摘要

This paper mainly investigates the literary turn in "post-Theory”. The first chapter introduces the notion of "Theory", and the relationship between "Theory" and linguistics, "Theory" and other literary theories. The main topic is about the relationship between "Theory", the linguistic turn and the literature. The second chapter mainly introduces the concept of "post-Theory" and three aspects of "post-Theory" according to different attitude towards “Theory”: the resistance to “Theory”, the heritage of “Theory” and the improvement to “Theory”. The last one includes two aspects: come back to a bigger “Theory” or go to smaller theories. The last three chapters are about the literary turn in "post-Theory" from three different standpoints. The fourth chapter is the "post-Theory" in literary studies. This turn shows the shift from the study of social politics to the study of literary texts. Ideological criticism has been challenged. Topics of meaning and value are coming back, including the discussion of interpretation limits, the value of canon, and the return of the aesthetics. This turn shows a return to the “pre-Theory” era, but also contains something new “post-Theory”. The fifth chapter starts from the standpoint out of literary study. The linguistic turn changes the traditional concept of discipline. All the questions of different disciplines “post-Theory” can be now regarded as the problem of language. Literature from that point brings much inspiration to those non-literary fields, such as law study, philosophy, history and so on. These studies also bring new things to literary theory, expanding the influence of literature. The last chapter sees "Theory" from the standpoint of “Theory” itself From this point, “Theory” discovers the literary in itself. Jonathan Culler and David Simpson show us that literature has ruled "Theory". James Wood’s new kind of writing provides a model combining theory and literature. This turn eliminates the boundary between "Theory" and literature, directing a new future for literary and "Theory". The literary turn in "post-Theory" shows that literature is not dead. It exists in a variety of changed forms, and "Theory" is not dead too. Its most precious heritage is preserved in literature. The investigation of the literary turn in "post-Theory" will provide useful suggestions for the future of literature and "Theory". Keywords: “Theory”, “post-Theory”, the literary turn, the linguistic turn, literary theory, literature

作者相关
主题相关
看过该书的人还在看哪些书