ORIGINAL VERSION SEE: ARGUMENTS ON LITERATURE AND ART,NOV,29,2024

译者前言

【It will be translated in English when it is necessary]

”文学终结论“，这个”终结论“非常有标题党之虞，非常引人注目，在此之前，很少有读者，尤其是文学读者发现有一个群集的”终结论“现象已然在现当代发生过。 这说明，”终结论“维度上的”文学批评“与文学阅读乃至创作是两种至少不是很亲密的阵营，以致造成某种程度的闭塞；其次也说明，这种”终结论“的原出处，并不是冠以”终结“的名义，以致没有引起大多数读者的注意。参考李进书的这篇论文，”终结论“主要反映了以阿多诺、米勒、德里达、本雅明、伊格尔顿等后马克思主义批评家，对于文学前途的焦虑与担忧。他们的”焦虑与担忧“究竟是不是一种”焦虑与担忧“，或单纯是”焦虑“，以每个马克思主义哲学家他们主要的论题并不是针对文学前途输出焦虑和担忧， 以及他们并非是在同一个或相近的时间段内以鱼贯之势进行这种“终结论”的论述来看，这种“焦虑和担忧”由于其客观上并不”集中分布”，从而只能视为李进书文论中的主观措词。李进书在其论文中多次提到“焦虑和担忧”，以加强一种观感，让读者得到一种这些哲学家们对“文学前途”确实非常关注，非常焦虑的印象，从而突出“文学终结论”话题的重要性，这是他文论中的论述策略，带有一定的主观性。其次，这篇文论，本身是一种“文学批评”，是属于“文学范畴”，但是他所引用的一些例子，也即上述对文学前途”焦虑和担忧“的哲学家们，都是20世纪左翼哲学领域的中坚，他们在自己的学术论述中，其实所涉比较宽广，都在不同程度上涉及到多个领域。诸如社会学、文学研究，艺术哲学，大众文化研究，后殖民研究、媒体研究等等。李进书以这些学者的观点来论述文学的观点，其实依然在米勒意义上的”文论转向“上，即大多数学者都离开了文学批评，转而研究社会学、文化研究，后殖民研究及媒体研究等。换言之，中国学者李进书也是在这种”偏离文学”的轨道上，在这样一种特征下，其文论就没有所谓存在一种主张，即通过谈论西方的“文学终结论”，来隐射当前中国文学批评中的弊病；或干脆以他山的意见为自身的意见，强调“文学必须有自己的自主性”，而禁止别的学科“浸淫”“侵犯”文学。因为在方法论上来看，李进书的文论恰恰是西方”文学终结论“所批判的对象。事实上，罗列哲学史上关于文学的一种言论，从而得出某个关于文学的结论，同样给人以“多种论调围剿文学”的印象。文学批评将被抽离其本来广阔的可能性，而只能在自己孤立、隔离的境遇中，去耕耘自己多少有点贫瘠的土地。如果我们承认文学包罗万象，那么，文学就不能离开“万象”本身话语体系，而强调自己有一种与众不同的体质。更不能把理论借鉴当成”文学不自主“的藉口，把要求”文学自主“当成禁止文学理论借鉴，限制文学自由使用他山先进工具的理由。这无论如何只会导致文学批评更加贫穷，从话语层面，通过话语互动而促进文学繁荣的角度来说，基于上述多少有点狭隘性质的文学理想，或者关于文学的“纯粹性理想 ”，无疑会导致文学面临一种无论如何不能促进其思想进化的平庸的外部语言环境。所以，指出以影视动力为基础的文化工业以其经济学与传媒优势对文学形成倾轧与主导，使文学失去自主的观念，依然存在一种悖论：即将文学圈禁在自己的小圈子里，反而成为”文学自主自由“的理由。“纯粹化文学话语”从根本上来说是一种荒诞的文学理想，是隔离、绝缘式的真空文学创建思想。

既谈到”文学终结论，不妨再说说张江老师的《强制阐释论》，光看这个标题，会引起许多共鸣。无庸置疑，许多作者，包括历史上遭遇不公的作者（如果他们还在世），都会有不同程度的受到“强制阐释”这种命运。换言之，其作品在不同程度上会遇到某种粗暴的待遇，或者否定，或者扭曲作者的创作初衷等等，故都可以视为“强制阐释”的受害者。在这个标题层面的影响下，相信大部分学者和作家，都是同意，这个世界上有一种“强制阐释”，并需要郑重面对或作出批判。

进入到《强制阐释论》的文本层面，你却会发现，对“强制阐释”的批判导向，与“文学终结论”如出一辙。张江的《强制阐释论》看起来极富天才意气，锋芒毕露，思想核心始终围绕 “从实践到理论”这一有点“实在主义”与“实证主义”倾向的工具。但从其同样认为文学批评借鉴其他领域理论导致文学理论本身的不纯粹的思想来看，他与李进书的”文学终结论“的总结论所抵达的理论目标一致，即都是把文学批评围堵到一种角落的行为，都是要求文学批评抽掉它从周围环境与它领域中借鉴的成分，墨守成规，或”仅用自己的方式“去发展。这种文学“自己的方式”固然是可以发掘探索的，但“强制阐释论”恰恰强调了一种“由借鉴所导致的文学的不文学”，相当于强调文学批评应该禁止借鉴其他领域理论，这种由对”强制阐释“的批判出发，结果却走到了一种”对文学的禁闭“这一反面，是张江教授自身所没有发现的一种保守主义。因此，他至多只能是一位保守主义阵营上的天才。他的《强制阐释论》主要围剿的是文学批评的“理论借鉴”，“从理论到理论”，认为这种”理论借鉴“与“理论到理论”下的强制阐释，与西方教条主义（独断论）有着深刻渊源。（我们结合当下中美关系语境，也能理解这种“独断论”的厉害之处，但是，西方的“独断论”应该追溯至其帝国主义、殖民主义时期的文化论调与经济策略，单纯从其文学史上来看是没有这种倾向的。此外，马克思主义不仅强调从实践到理论的真理生产过程，也通过革命本身说明了”理论引导实践“的可行性与必要性，故从”理论到理论“不能遽视为理论的非法生产，也不能想当然地、独断性地认为这种理论没有实践依据）

笔者认为，《强制阐释论》作为一种不失天才的文本，有其被保留、被传承的必要性，同时，它对当代全球政治气候实际上不无有着一种隐射，从而它的本意，不管是出于对文学还是对其他领域的意见，都在客观上成为一种隐晦或鲜明的“合时代”的批评，不仅对西方，对东方都有一种参考价值，而正因为如此，文学在其中充当一个“喻体”，比充当本体来得更实在。也就是说，对文学批评所进行的一种“提议理论缴械”式的批评，实际上不足以当成一种文学批评的本体论。简言之，文学批评本体论上的”强制阐释论“恰恰揭示的是保守主义的文学观；而”强制阐释“作为当今全球政治的隐喻，反而来得更有针对性，更务实，更具有光明性。（章闻哲）

“文学终结论”的核心人物：J.希利斯. 米勒

To the literary stream since the beginning of the 21st century, it’s no doubt that “ literature ends” plays a quite important role in it, it both arouses an enduring and wide debate on whether literature will cease to run in the scholarly circle, and inspires us to think long and deeply about the status and destiny of literature. By entirely inspection of the “literature ends” and the relative arguments, we find that : to some degree, this discourse of ending is a consideration produced in scholars’ worrying about the fortune of literature. They are concerned that :the literature impacted by the technology of telecommunication, and so on, would lose its autonomous existence, or would be deprived its right of creating free moment for individuals,and so on so forth. For this reason, based on which scholars insist on believing that the literature will not end, an effort has also been done on exploration the method and path of the autonomous existence of literature. Theodor W Adorno,also expressed his worrying about the perspective of literature, though he was not entangled in whether literature would end, through a positive exploration of the literary autonomy to highlight the exclusive value and inner life power,therefore, not only gives creators and researchers of literature much more confidence and hope, but also makes people see the irreplaceable effect of the literature on construction the good life order.

就21世纪以来的文学思潮而言，“文学终结论”无疑在其中扮演着一个非常重要的角色，它既引发了学界关于文学是否会终结的持久而广泛的争论，也激发了我们对文学的地位和其未来命运的长久的、深层的思考。整体地审视“文学终结论”以及相关的论争，我们发现：某种程度上，这种终结论是学者们因对文学命运焦虑而产生的思考。他们担心：文学在电信技术等外力的冲击下，会失去其自主性（autonomous）的存在，会被剥夺为个体创造自由契机的权利，等等。为此，学者们在坚信文学不会终结的基础上，也努力地探究着文学自主存在的方法和途径。阿多诺（Theodor W.Adorno）对文学的前景也有深深的担忧，不过，他没有过多地纠结于文学是否会终结这个问题，而是通过积极地探究文学的自主性来凸显文学的独特价值和内在生命力，从而既给予了文学创作者和文学研究者以信心和希望，也使人们看到文学在良善生活（good life）建构上具有不可忽视的作用。

Adorno’s thoughts of the literary autonomy had impact the later scholars like Friedrich Welhelm, Jamson and Munch in various degrees. Generally, many theorists in their facing the worrying about the ending of literature and talking about the literary autonomy, neither have they discussed how to dispel the worrying about the ending of literature, nor have they stressed the literary autonomy, but explored the connotation and value of literature through putting the literature on the level of construction the good life order, thereby confirmed literature about its function of fostering individual’s progress and the unity of human with an attitude of free form and less limitation . That is, in whatever environment, literature can keep an existence of less limited degree showing precisely of its exclusive value by reflection of the thick and heavy reality , thus, it may not only make people trust literature long , but also can effectively dissolve people’s concern and worrying about the fortune of literature. More over, from the research of Miller, the telecom technology and the internet promoted his cognition and rethinking of the case Osweissin, which shows that the medium tech and literature are not in a relation of what is so called “the fire and water are incompatible”, they can commonly serve as promoting the individual morality and the progress of the human civilization.

阿多诺的文学自主思想对其后的韦尔默、詹姆逊和门克等人产生了不同程度的影响。整体地看，很多理论家在面对文学终结的焦虑和谈论文学自主时，既没有单纯探讨如何消除文学终结的焦虑，也没有片面地强调文学自主，而是通过将文学放在良善生活建构层面上探究文学的内涵和价值，从而肯定了文学能以低限度姿态和自主形式促进个体进步和人类团结。这说明无论在何种处境下，文学都能以其厚重的现实观照保持一种低限度的存在和彰显其独特的价值，这样既能使文学赢得人们持久的信任，也能有效地化解人们对文学命运的焦虑和担心。而且从米勒本身的文学研究来看，电信技术和互联网推进了他对奥斯维辛事件的反思和认识，这说明媒介技术与文学并非水火不容的关系，它们能够共同服务于个体道德的提升和人类文明的进步。

“文学死了吗”这个标题引起注意的程度并不比萨特的“什么是文学”来得更甚，中国“转述”中的“文学终结论”却引起了超级注意力

THE END OF LITERATURE: THINKING AND WORRYING ABOUT THE LITERARY FORTUNE

一、“文学终结”：对文学命运的焦虑和思考

The ending of literature what is paid more attention has been subsided, when we examine this profound literary event by reason, we’ll find that to some degree it is the scholars who attended this argument thinking and worrying about the fortune of literature. This worrying about the end of literature is a sort of general phenomenon happened worldwide, Adorno and Eagleton, and so on , also have pondered about this theme to varying degrees. Generally, what these scholars are worrying about is not the true end and real death of literature, but about which literature can not autonomously exist under multiple extrusions of outside. It is because thinking of the topic of literary end mainly based on the development of literature, far from falling into the mire of whether literature would end, rather, scholars dig out many impetuses for the literature.

曾经备受关注的文学终结论争已经趋于平静，当我们理性审视这个影响深远的文学事件时，我们发现一定程度上它是参与这个话题论争的学者对文学命运的焦虑和思考。这种文学终结的焦虑是世界范围的一种普遍现象，阿多诺和伊格尔顿等人对此话题也有着不同程度的思考。整体地看，这些学者所焦虑的并非文学真的会终结和必然要死亡，而是担心文学在诸多外力挤压下难以自主存在。正因为主要基于文学的发展来思考文学终结这个话题，所以学者们非但没有陷入文学是否会终结的泥淖中，相反，为文学挖掘出很多动力来。

To speak objectively, when Miller proposed “the end of literature” in 2001, many scholars misunderstood that he was negatively predicting the future of literature, therefore, they fiercely criticized Miller’s “blind mouth and conjecture”. In fact , after they cooled down, we find more in Miller is the concern about the perspective of literature. He is concerned with which under the impact of the telecom tech, the writing pattern of literature would change, the proportion of the literature in human’s life world might be less and less, for example, by citing the dialogue between Derrida and his graduate student in book The Postcard by Derrida, Miller expresses his concern and worrying about the literature, “ this protagonist’s words caused an intense repercussion in my heart, it is anxiety, confusing, also concern and rage, and subtly, maybe, there is a desire as well, I want to see what would the life world come to be without those literature, love letter,psychoanalysis which are the most primary humanistic disciplines. To be sure, its just like living in the end of the world!”

客观地讲，当2001年米勒提出“文学终结论”时，很多学者误认为他在为文学的未来进行消极性的预言，为此，他们对米勒的“妄言臆断”展开了激烈的批评。其实，冷静下来之后，我们发现米勒更多的是对文学前景的焦虑和担心。他担心在电信技术的冲击下，文学的书写方式会改变，文学在人类的生活世界中所占的比重将会越来越小。例如，通过引用德里达的《明信片》中德里达与一位研究生的对话，米勒表达了他对文学未来的焦虑和担忧，“这位主人公的话在我心中激起了强烈的反响，有焦虑、有疑惑，也有担心、有愤慨，隐隐地或许还有一种渴望，想看一看生活在没有了文学、情书、哲学、精神分析这些最主要的人文学科的世界里，将会是什么样子。无异于生活在世界的末日！”

Thereafter, aiming at Derrida’s “ no more writing what lover letters”, Miller continued to express his anxiety even his dislike, for despite his worrying about the literary destiny, in his heart, rather insists that literature’s existence is a necessity. “ whatever it is, Derrida’s words--no matter it is the dialogue between he and the postgraduate (the protagonist in The Postcard), or whatever you and me read in that book-- both arouse in our heart the mighty fear, anxiety, dislike and puzzlement,and the vague desire, these words are felicitous performative utterance. They are practicing their proverbs and indirectly bring about the end of literature and lover letters”. It is for this reason, Mr Zhu Liyuan in his reviewing and introspection of The End of Literature and its influence, correctly points out that: such arguments reveal many scholar’s common anxiety and similar concern about the literary perspective.

而后，针对德里达断言“再也不要写什么情书了”，米勒继续表达着他的焦虑乃至反感，因为虽然他对文学命运充满着焦虑，但是他内心坚定地认为文学有存在的必要性。“不管怎么说，德里达这些话——不管是他（或者《明信片》中的主人公）跟那位研究生的，还是你我在那本书中读到的——在我们的心中都激起了强烈的恐惧、焦虑、反感、疑惑，还有隐隐的渴望，这些话是‘恰如其分’的施为性话语（‘felicitous’ performative utterance）。他们实践着他们的箴言而间接地带来了文学、情书等等的终结”。正因如此，朱立元先生在回顾和反思文学终结论及其影响时，准确地指出：这种争论中流露着许多学者对文学前途的共同焦虑和相似担忧。

国内学界对米勒“文学终结论”的追踪

It could be say that , in the first few years after Miller’s address of this viewpoint, the criticism attitude was predominant in the scholar circle .The discussion of Chinese scholars , however,both are exposed a sort of emotion of hard anxiety to the future of literature,whether it is criticism or approval.” Besides the worrying about literature, a certain concern about the creative tendency of literature that monopolized by the new medias is reflected in Miller’s idea as well.He describes what he had ever seen and heard in one of his attendance the academic meeting, “ at that meeting, the Chinese writers that nowadays has been the most respected and influential , are obviously the writers that their fictions or stories have been adapted for teleplay....but the turning towards the new media ,is precise.” the adaption phenomenon revealed by Miller not only belongs to China, but the universal phenomenon , which presents in mass media age and consumption society, many writers have taken his works adapted for TV play as a verification of his achievement. This to some degree, has misled the purpose of literary creation, distorted the measurement of the literary value. Nonetheless, Miller does not lose his confidence of literature, on the contrary, he endeavour to explore the path and future of literature. This is the reason why he was always stressing that besides the anxiety , there was a sort of desire as well. Of course, it is also the reason why we take this End of Literature as anxiety and pondering. Namely , scholars are also exploring the hope of literature, while worrying about the literary fortune.

“可以说，在米勒提出这一观点的头几年里，学界对之持批评态度的占主导地位。但是，中国学者的讨论无论是批评还是赞同，同样都透露出一种对文学未来命运的浓重的焦虑情绪。”除了对文学的前途担忧之外，米勒也对新媒体垄断下文学的创作倾向表示了一定的担心。他曾描述了他在中国参加一次学术会议的见闻，“在那次会议上，如今最受尊敬、最有影响的中国作家，显然是其小说或故事被改编成各种电视剧的作家。……但向新媒体的转移却是明确无疑的。”米勒所揭示的这种改编现象并非中国独有，而是一种全球的普遍现象，它表明了在大众传媒时代和消费社会里，很多作家将其作品能否改编为影视作品视作其创作成功的验证。这在一定程度上误导了文学创作的目的，扭曲了文学价值的衡量标准。不过，米勒并没有因焦虑而丧失对文学的信心，相反，他努力地为文学探寻着出路和希望，这也是他一直强调他在焦虑之外还有一种“渴望”的缘由所在。当然，这也是我们把文学终结论看作一种焦虑和思考的缘故，即学者们在焦虑文学命运的同时，也为文学探寻着希望的契机。

In fact , Miller is not the only one that worrying about the end of literature ,a number of theorists have their concern about the fortune of literature to varying degrees, and pondering the perspective of literature in different depth, which promote our cognition of the situation of literature, deepened our rethinking of how can literature autonomously exist. Among it, when see the film gradually eroding the literary room, Benjamin points out with a melancholy tone: the film, this mechanical replicating production both dissolves the inspiring of literature, and changes the manner of writing aesthetic experience; in the old years, people’s depicting figures,passing on the aesthetic experience, mainly rely on literature , and now , the film replaced literature comes to be an hot artistic expression method. Therefore, Benjamin use Abelgans’ words reads that : Shakespeare,Rembrandt, Beethoven will be adapted for the screen...all of the legend, of the mythology, of the religious founder and the religion as such, are all waiting for their resurrection on the screen,masters have gathered in front of the gate pushing and squeezing against one another.”

其实，文学终结的焦虑绝非米勒一人独有，很多理论家也对文学的命运流露出不同程度的担心，对文学的前景进行了深度不同的思考，这些思考提升了我们对文学处境的认识，加深了我们对文学如何自主存在的反思。其中，当看到电影逐渐兴起并侵蚀着文学的空间时，本雅明以一种忧郁口吻指出，电影这种机械复制产品既消解了文学的灵韵，也改变了人们书写审美经验的方式；以往，人们主要依靠文学来刻画形象、传递审美经验，现在电影取代文学而成为最炙手可热的艺术表达方式。为此，本雅明借阿贝尔·冈斯的口说道：“莎士比亚、伦勃朗、贝多芬将被搬上电影……所有的传说、所有的神话、所有的宗教创始人以及宗教本身都等待着在银幕上复活，主人公们已在大门前你推我搡。”

To a certain degree, such aesthetic activities in old days mainly be the responsibility of literature , and now , the film becomes the primary option, and what is the more horrible is ,with the speedy development and the cultural industry gradually formed, which thence not only the literary room is nibbled and squashed , but also the estimation criteria of literature is modified through the adaption of literary works, and more over, individuals are trained to be servant of authority through which their perception capacity is weaken.

从某种程度上讲，以前这样的审美活动主要由文学担当和负责，现在电影则成为不二人选，并且更可怕的是，随着电影快速发展以及文化工业逐步形成，它们在蚕食和挤压文学空间的同时，也通过改编文学作品来修改文学的评价标准，并借助弱化个体的感知力将他们规训为权威的奴仆。

杨向荣对“文学终结论”的相关观点中包含从“终结”中看到“新象”的哲学发现

It is for this cognition of the negation of the cultural industry and the dilemma of the literature, Adorno worries that the “ end of the art” raised by Hegel would become a reality in the current context, “ what the conservative cultural negativism had ever intensely opposed,can not be repressed by the cultural criticism: namely, just like Hegel had thought 150 years ago,the art maybe have been entering its demise stage.” precisely, Adorno do not really think that literature would go to death, what he worries and was concerned is only that under the monopoly of the cultural industry, the literature would lose its autonomy, and comes to be the consumptive goods of culture, heterized as the “social cement” of maintaining the ruling order. To speak objectively, Adorno’s concern about “ literature becomes the consumptive of culture” is not of unnecessary, because the scholarly research in humanistic realm has turned towards the cultural research of consumption from the severe cultural research, because of the development of the medium tech and the prevailing of the cultural research.

正是认识到文化工业这些消极作用以及文学的艰难处境，因此阿多诺担心黑格尔的“艺术终结”预言会在当前语境下实现，“保守的文化消极主义曾强烈反对的问题无法被文化批判压制住：即，恰如黑格尔150年前所思考的那样，艺术也许步入它的死亡（demise）阶段。”显然，阿多诺绝不会认为文学真的会终结或死亡，他只是担心和焦虑在文化工业的垄断下，文学失去其自主性，成为文化消费品，异化为维护统治秩序的“社会水泥”。客观地讲，阿多诺关于“文学成为文化消费品”的担忧并不多余，因为随着媒介技术的发展和文化研究的盛行，人文领域的学术研究已经由严肃的文学研究转向消费性的文化研究。

This necessarily intensifies scholars’ concern about the literary perspective, “if in the past, rock music made you distracted, then now it would quite possible to be you object of research. The leaning and asking(amounts to research ,knowledge,and the methodology of getting knowledge), is no more a thing only means staying in the tower of ivory, but belongs to the media world, shopping center, aromatic boudoir, and the brothel.（these places where Li Jingshu indicates belong to a subjective and idealistic realm, maybe none of literary research's business , or rather, it is a psychological phenomenon which needs to be further researched ) Thus , they come back to the daily life, though would have possible to lose its capacity of criticism.

这自然加剧了学者们对文学前景的担忧，“过去，摇滚乐使你学习分心，现在它很可能是你研究的对象。学问不再是象牙塔之事，却属于传媒世界、购物中心、香闺密室,秦楼楚馆。这样，它们回归到日常生活——只是有可能失去批评生活的能力。”

陈也东文论中突出了米勒的“狂者妄言”，很可引起了“狂者妄言”与文学复兴之间关系本质的追究

Such phenomenon revealed by Eagleton, also see in Miller’s concern about the literature: “ the most sign of which literature would die away is , large number of young teachers of literary department world wide, are leaving the literary research, turning to theory, cultural research , post -colonic research, media research( film and television)... they always ignore or maginalize the literature in their writing and lecture.” From this point of view, the end of literature should be the worldwide anxiety and common meditation of scholars, they see both the new medium’s impact on the literature constantly, and the persevere resistant of the literature and its necessity of continuing existence.

关于伊格尔顿所揭示的这种现象，米勒也有类似的担心：“文学行将消亡的最显著征兆之一，就是全世界的文学系的年轻教员，都在大批离开文学研究，转向理论、文化研究、后殖民研究、媒体研究（电影、电视等）……他们在写作和教学中常常把文学边缘化或者忽视文学。”由此看来，文学终结应是全球范围内学者们的一种普遍焦虑和共同的思考，他们既看到新的媒介技术对文学不间断的冲击，也看到文学坚韧的反抗和其继续存在的必然性。

• 个人配资安全吗