欢迎访问《北京师范大学学报》(社会科学版),今天是

北京师范大学学报(社会科学版) ›› 2019, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (4): 69-77.

• 文学新探 • 上一篇    下一篇

论新历史主义的理论旨趣及其文化影响

金永兵   

  1. 北京大学 中文系,北京 100871
  • 收稿日期:2018-11-26 出版日期:2019-07-25 发布日期:2019-11-01
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金重大项目“马克思主义文学理论关键词及当代意义研究”(18ZDA275)。

On the Theoretical Purpose of New Historicism and its Impact on Culture

JIN Yongbing   

  1. Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Beijiang University, Beijing 100871, China
  • Received:2018-11-26 Online:2019-07-25 Published:2019-11-01

摘要: 新历史主义之“新”,在于它是一种将历史文本化,用文化阐释的方式解读历史的理论,它关注的重心不再是由实在事件构成的“历史”,而是由话语符号构成的文本和贯穿于文本之中的“文化”,因而对其更为准确的描述应是“历史文化主义”。相对于原来带有实证主义色彩的历史主义而言,它将一种对于文学而言的外在性历史视角,转化为文化场域内历史文本与文学文本的互文关系。这种研究方法一方面通过将历史文本化,历史首先被视为一种文本的建构而非客观的存在,动摇了历史叙述中那种根深蒂固的语言透明性,使外在性的历史以“文本—文化”的方式转化成了内在性的历史;另一方面通过在文学文本和历史文本之间建立起互文关系,将形式方法扩展到了文化领域,将原有的文学文本之间的互文转化成了一种文学与历史之间的“跨文体互文”,新历史主义在一定意义上打破了形式主义、结构主义等研究方法的纯内在性。这种泛文本化的思想方法为文化研究开辟了道路,形成了一种文化诗学、历史诗学。但这种文本化的方式依然存在着两方面的困境:其一是使文学理论研究中的二元对立的否定性结构更为显著;其二是使“历史”被抽空了丰富性的内核,成了空洞的概念。新历史主义的这种困境也是文学理论尝试以二元对立的共时性结构来批判实证主义、经验主义,重建一种文本自律性的理论体系这一尝试的最终困境。新历史主义使文学理论走到了“文学之外”,却没能使文学研究以一种新的方式真正地走到“文化之外”、“文本之外”,新历史主义者依然没能走出杰姆逊意义上的“语言的牢笼”,将一切泛文本化实际上否定了文学有任何超越文本之外的现实价值。

关键词: 新历史主义, 文学理论, 历史文化主义

Abstract: The “newness” of New Historicism lies in textualizing and analyzing history and interpreting from cultural perspectives, by attaching emphasis no longer on the history constructed by real events, but on the text composed of discourse symbols and the culture embodied throughout the text. Therefore, a more accurate expression of New Historicism should be “historical culturalism”. Compared to traditional Historicism influenced by Positivism, New Historicism transforms an extrinsic historical perspective of literature into an intertextual relationship between historical and literary texts in the cultural field. On the one hand, it is a path-breaking method regarding history as a textual construction, but not an objective existence by textualizing history, wavering the deep-rooted linguistic transparency in historical narratives, transforming the extrinsic history into an intrinsic one by the method of text-culture. On the other hand, New Historicism extends formal methods to the cultural field by establishing an intertextual relationship between literary and historical texts, transforming the original intertextuality between literary texts into “cross-genre intertextuality” between literature and history. In a sense, New Historicism has also broken the pure intrinsic nature of research methods such as formalism and structuralism, opened the way for cultural research as a pan-textual approach, and formed cultural and historical poetics. However, this method still faces two dilemmas: first, it causes the negative structure of binary opposition in literary theory to be more prominent; second, it results in the emptying of the meaningful core of “history” and turning it into a hollow concept. This dilemma of New Historicism is also the ultimate dilemma of the attempt of literary theories when criticizing positivism and empiricism as well as reconstructing a theoretical system of text-autonomy by using the synchronic structure of binary opposition. New Historicism has brought literary theory “outside of literature”, but it has not enabled literary studies to go “outside of culture” or “outside of text”. New Historians are still unable to step outside of “Prison-House of Language” put forward by Jameson, and the textualization of everything, in fact, denies that literary can have any real value beyond the text.

Key words: New Historicism, literary theory, Historical Culturism

中图分类号: