外国文学研究
外國文學研究
외국문학연구
Foreign Literature Studies
2014年
4期
107~119
,共null页
美国非裔文学理论 黑人性 真实性 基要主义 差异性
美國非裔文學理論 黑人性 真實性 基要主義 差異性
미국비예문학이론 흑인성 진실성 기요주의 차이성
African American literary theory; blackness; authenticity; essentialism; difference
“黑人的真实”这一概念一直被用于表达差异性和特质性,本文通过考察这一概念长期以来在美国非裔文学理论与实践中的作用,试图重新审视1987年乔伊斯·安·乔伊斯、小亨利·路易斯·盖茨、小休斯顿·贝克等美国非裔学者在《新文学理论》上进行的论争。重新审视这一论争的一个核心问题就是如何对待因由安置(移置)美国非裔文学理论基础这一双重任务而形成的两个阵营内部和双方之间存在的各种相互交织的路线。本文认为:我们应该将各方立场对照起来研读,视之为互为补充,而不应该择其一二孤立对待;这种理论立场的转变使我们能够理解到底什么才足以成为美国非裔文学理论这一问题并非要追求一个定论,更是要人们不断思考:我们为什么总是关注这类理论?对一个需要不断重新协商的领域,这场论争到底对我们提出了什么要求?
“黑人的真實”這一概唸一直被用于錶達差異性和特質性,本文通過攷察這一概唸長期以來在美國非裔文學理論與實踐中的作用,試圖重新審視1987年喬伊斯·安·喬伊斯、小亨利·路易斯·蓋茨、小休斯頓·貝剋等美國非裔學者在《新文學理論》上進行的論爭。重新審視這一論爭的一箇覈心問題就是如何對待因由安置(移置)美國非裔文學理論基礎這一雙重任務而形成的兩箇陣營內部和雙方之間存在的各種相互交織的路線。本文認為:我們應該將各方立場對照起來研讀,視之為互為補充,而不應該擇其一二孤立對待;這種理論立場的轉變使我們能夠理解到底什麽纔足以成為美國非裔文學理論這一問題併非要追求一箇定論,更是要人們不斷思攷:我們為什麽總是關註這類理論?對一箇需要不斷重新協商的領域,這場論爭到底對我們提齣瞭什麽要求?
“흑인적진실”저일개념일직피용우표체차이성화특질성,본문통과고찰저일개념장기이래재미국비예문학이론여실천중적작용,시도중신심시1987년교이사·안·교이사、소형리·로역사·개자、소휴사돈·패극등미국비예학자재《신문학이론》상진행적논쟁。중신심시저일논쟁적일개핵심문제취시여하대대인유안치(이치)미국비예문학이론기출저일쌍중임무이형성적량개진영내부화쌍방지간존재적각충상호교직적로선。본문인위:아문응해장각방립장대조기래연독,시지위호위보충,이불응해택기일이고립대대;저충이론립장적전변사아문능구리해도저십요재족이성위미국비예문학이론저일문제병비요추구일개정론,경시요인문불단사고:아문위십요총시관주저류이론?대일개수요불단중신협상적영역,저장논쟁도저대아문제출료십요요구?
This article revisits the debate that took place in the pages of New Literary History in 1987 among Joyce A. Joyce, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and Houston Baker Jr. by examining the continuing role of the notion of black authenticity deployed for articulation of differences and specificities. What becomes decisive in revisiting the debate is how to take into account all the various intersecting lines within and between the two positions by the double task of (dis)placing the ground of African American literary theory. Within mind the idea that theory is precisely what different theories themselves contest, I put forth the argument that one should read the one position against the grain of the other and consider them to be mutually constitutive rather than opt out of any of the terms and conditions of the debate. From such a shift of theoretical locus, one is enabled to understand that the question of what African American literary theory ought to be not so much asking for a definition as arguing for an ongoing discussion on why we always concern ourselves with such theory at all and what this engagement with the debate entails for us in a field of perpetual renegotiation.