二十世纪西方文艺批评理论.doc

Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories二十世纪西方文艺批评理论Zhu Gang朱刚上海外语教育出版社，20012005年第四次印刷Introduction This sourcebook comes out of a need for basic texts of the twentieth century Western literary and cultural theories. The current volume is meant solely for pedagogical purposes, i.e., for graduate courses on contemporary Western literary theory. Each unit forms a critical “school” (in the broad sense), starting with a critical survey of the school under discussion. For each critic, the sourcebook provides a sketchy introduction, a selection of the critics work, some necessary notes to the texts (reduced to the minimum for a smooth reading.), followed by study questions based on the essay selected for better understanding and class discussion, and finally books and articles recommended for further reading. The book chooses to examine in a roughly chronological order some major Western critical theories of the twentieth century, from Russian Formalism in the early decades to, for instance, the Cultural Studies in the nineties. In addition to a close reading of some carefully selected texts and a survey of current knowledge in this field, the course seeks to introduce students to the major approaches to literature, to show what kind of knowledge is involved and what forms of inquiry exist in this area, how different means of analysis are used, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The chief objective of the book is to raise the students awareness of the importance of being critical and of the critical theory, discuss with them some influential speculations on and critical approaches to literature, and use them in textual analysis. It will concentrate on a number of questions, such as the locus of literary meaning, the status of the text, the role of the reader, the function of language in literary exegesis, the referentiality of literature, and the relation of literature and society. These questions are of general interest to the students of literature, and of special help to MA students working on their dissertation. The selection of critics (the so-called “canon”) has been made on the bases of their representative character and their availability in Chinese university libraries. The works selected are among the most discussed by Chinese literary scholars and are helpful to students in interpreting literary texts. The assortment of critics into schools is unavoidably arbitrary. Barthes, for instance, should be more properly put under “Deconstruction”, and Said may also belong to “Cultural Studies.” The best policy is to pay more attention to the ideas expressed in the essays than to the labels assigned them. Owing to limits of space, the selections are too short, and the notes too scanty, to ensure good understanding. It is recommended that MA students who are going to write on theory or Ph.D. students of literature read the original work in its entirety. To understand our field of inquiry, a concise, tentative definition of terminology is necessary at the outset, however insufficient any such definition may seem to be today. First and foremost, what is literature? The question is extremely difficult to answer since literature seems to include everything verbally or orally recorded. But this is an important question because contemporary critical theory started with efforts at such a definition. That definition is a negative one: i.e., what is it that sets literature apart from non-literature? In other words, contemporary literary theory started with identifying specific qualities that make a piece of work literary, and all contemporary approaches to literature are answers, in one way or another, to the question of what literature is. Next, what is “theory”? As a field of intellectual inquiry, theory may be taken to be “a body of generalizations and principles, or an ideal or hypothetical set of facts and circumstances, developed in association with practice in a field of activity and forming its content as an intellectual discipline.” In other words, “theory” deals with things on abstract level (generalizations and principles), not in their concrete forms, though this abstraction is based on the actual practices. For instance, literary “theory” develops out of interpretation of concrete works of art. It is an independent “discipline” because it has its own nature, scope of investigation, and methodology, though it is more and more difficult to identify what these really are. Most importantly, “theory” invites criticism and inquiry, itself being “ideal or hypothetical.” What is literary theory then? Simply put, it is “speculative discourse on literature and on practice of literature.” It may include reflections on or analysis of general principles and categories of literature, such as its nature and function; its relation to other aspects of culture; the purpose, procedures and validity of literary criticism; relation of literary text to their authors and historical contexts; or the production of literary meaning. But what is the difference between “literary theory” and “literary criticism?” A most concise answer would be: one is concerned with “theory” while the other “practice.” Wellek in fact defines “criticism” as “study of concrete works of art.” “Criticism,” we might say, includes “describing, interpreting and evaluating the meaning and effect that literary works have for competent but not necessarily academic readers.” Since “criticism” deals with the experience of reading, it is “not exclusively academic, but often personal and subjective.” A similar though in many ways different concept is aesthetics. The discipline is concerned with literature from a “philosophical” point of view, stressing its relation to the general concepts of art, beauty and value. It has limited relevance to practical literary study or “criticism,” but has strong affinities with “critical theory” as both tend to take the work of art as “autonomous” and look for its specificities. “Scholarship” is a somewhat different concept. It goes beyond the readers experience by referring to factors external to this experience, such as the genesis of the work or its textual transmission. It is often too positivistic to be “theoretical,” asking for detachment and rigor of a specialist. Finally, “critical theory” in this book is used in its broad sense, an umbrella term for various critical approaches to literature and culture in the twentieth century. Its narrower sense refers to the Frankfurt School tradition, seen generally as “responses to the specifically emancipatory interest that enters the order of aesthetic and social pracitces.” It is to be noted that much of Frankfurt tradition has merged with recent “literary theory” as the “generic term” when the latter becomes more and more “critical” in nature. Some suggestions for how to read critical theory: i. Always keep at an arms length from the theorists and theories. Always read with a critical eye open. ii. Always think of theory in relation to concrete literary works of art and try to use theory in textual interpretation. iii. Always think of theory in terms of the social reality that has produced it. Marxist perspective in this respect turns out to be helpful. The following reference books are recommended for the course. They are anthologies where more relevant texts are to be found, and introductory works on the theories to be discussed. These books may also appear in the “Further Reading.”Anthologies: Adams, Hazard ed. (1971), Critical Theory Since Plato.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Adams, Hazard & Leroy Searle (1986). Critical Theory Since 1965, Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida, Bate, Walter Jackson ed., Criticism: The Major Texts, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego etc., 1970 Borklund, Elmer, Contemporary Literary Critics, 2nd ed., Macmillan Publishers Limited, Hong Kong, 1982 Davis, Robert Con eds. (1998) Contemporary Literary Criticism: Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Longman Fokkema, D.W. & Elrud Kunne-Ibsch (1977). Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century. London: C. Hurst & Company Handy, William J. & Westbrook, Max eds., Twentieth Century Criticism, The Major Statesments, The Free Press, New York, 1974 Kaplan, Charles ed., Criticism: The Major Statements, St. Martins Press, New York, 1975 Latimer, Dan ed., Contemporary Critical Theory, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego etc. Lodge, David (1972). 20th Century Literary Criticism, London: Longman Group Ltd. Newton, K. M. (1988). Twentieth-Century Literary Theory, A Reader, London: MacMillan Education Ltd. -(1992) Theory into Practice, A Reader in Modern Literary Criticism. NY: St. Martins P. Rivkin, Lulie & Michael Ryan eds. (1998) Literary Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Trilling, Lionel ed., Literary Criticism, An Introductory Reader, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York etc., 1970Introduction: Culler, Jonathan (1997). Literary Theory. Oxford & New York: Oxford UP Eagleton, Terry (1985). Literary Theory, An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. Jefferson, Ann & David Robey eds. (1986) Modern Literary Theory-A Comparative Introduction. New Jersey: Barnes & Noble Books Leitch, Vincent B (1988). American Literary Criticism, from the 30s to the 80s. New York: Columbia UP Selden, Raman (1989). A Readers Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. New York & London: Harvester Wheatsheaf Spikes, Michael P. (1997) Understanding Contemporary American Literary theory. Columbia: U of South Carolina P Webster, Roger (1996). Studying Literary Theory, An Introduction. London & New York: ArnoldI would like to express my gratitude to the MA and Ph.D. students in my class all these years for their valuable contribution to this book. My thanks go in particular to Ms Zhu Xuefeng, Miss Tang Xiaomen and Miss Shen Xiaoni for their support in the preparation of the manuscript. Z. G. School of Foreign Studies Nanjing University Jan. 2001 Contents PageIntroduction iUnit 1 Russian Formalism 1 1. V. Shklovsky, Art as Technique 3 2. J. Mukarovsky, Standard Language and Poetic Language 9 3. B. Eikenbaum, The Theory of the “Formal Method” 13 4. L. Trotsky, The Formalist School of Poetry and Marxism 17Unit 2 Anglo-American New Criticism 23 1. T. S. Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent 25 2. W. K. Wimsatt, Jr. and M.C. Beardsley, The Intentional Fallacy 29 3. The Affective Fallacy 32 4. C. Brooks, Irony as a Principle of Structure 34 5. A. Tate, Tension in Poetry 38Unit 3 Marxist Criticism 43 1. T. Eagleton, Literature and History 45 2. G. Lukcs, Critical Realism and Socialist Realism 54 3. R. Williams: Determination 57 4. F. Jameson, Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act 61 5. The Prison-House of Language 65Unit 4 Psychoanalytical Criticism 69 1. S. Freud, The Structures of the Mind 71 2. The Oedipus Complex 78 3. The Interpretation of Dreams 82 4. Creative Writers and Daydreaming 84 5. L. Trilling, Freud and Literature 88 6. J. Lacan, The Mirror Stage 91Unit 5 Myth and Archetypal Criticism 96 1. C. G. Jung, The Principal Archetypes 98 2. The Concept of the Collective Unconscious 102 3. N. Frye, The Archetypes of Literature 106Unit 6 Structuralism 112 1. F. de Saussure, Nature of the Linguistic Sign 114 2. C. Lvi-Strauss, The Structural Study of Myth 117 3. R. Barthes, The Structuralist Activity 121 4. T. Todorov, Definition of Poetics 125Unit 7 Reader Criticism 129 1. W. Iser, The Act of Reading 131 2. H.R. Jauss, Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory 135 3. S. Fish, Why No Ones Afraid of Wolfgang Iser 138 4. N.N. Holland, Reading and Identity 141 5. D. Bleich, The Subjective Character of Critical Interpretation 145Unit 8 Deconstruction 150 1. J. Derrida, Structure, Sign, and Play 152 2. Diffrance 155 3. J. Hillis Miller, The Critic as Host 158 4. A. P. Debicki, New Criticism and Deconstruction 163 5. M. H. Abrams, The Deconstructive Angel 166 Unit 9 Feminist Criticism 170 1. T. Moi, Sexual/ Textual Politics 172 2. E. Showalter, A Literature of Their Own 176 3. Representing Ophelia 180 4. J. Kristeva, About Chinese Women 185Unit 10 New Historicism 192 1. M. Foucault, The Structures of Punishment 194 2. S. Greenblatt, The Improvisation of Power 197 3. J. Tompkins, Sentimental Power 201 4. N. Armstrong and L. Tennenhouse, Representing Violence 206 Unit 11 Post-Colonial Studies 212 1. A. Gramsci, The Prison Notebooks 214 2. F. Fanon, Black Skin White Masks 217 3. E. Said, Orientalism 220 4. G. Viswanathan, Masks of Conquest 224Unit 12 Gender Studies 230 1. V. L. Bullough, Homosexuality, A History 232 2. A. Jagose, Queer Theory, An Introduction 236 3. M. Wittig, One Is Not Born a Woman 239 4. E. K. Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet 243 5. J. Butler, Gender Trouble 246Unit 13 Cultural Studies 252 1. R. Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy 254 2. S. Hall, Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms 257 3. R. Williams, The Future of Cultural Studies 261 4. M. Gottdiener, Disneyland: A Utopian Urban Space 265 5. D. Wright, Racism in School Textbooks 271Unit 1 Russian Formalism In the heyday of high modernism emerged a group of college students and young faculty in Moscow and Petersburg, Russia, whose interest was claimed to be literature per se. They were few in number, but their unmistakable insistence on the ideal status of literary study and stubborn pursuit for its realization has marked the beginning of a new era, and produced profound influence on the su