Preface 前言
This book has been a long time in the making. I first began work on it in 1983. Owing to other pressures, however, I have rarely been able to devote more than a few days at a time to this work and, on occasions, have been obliged to put it to one side— festering malignantly in my filing cabinet—for several months. These remarks have a bearing on the form of the book. When it became clear that I should have to accommodate the book’s conception to these circumstances of working or abandon the project entirely, I determined on an episodic principle of organisation. Thus, rather than offering a continuing argument which develops cumulatively from chapter to chapter, I have sought, in each chapter, to deal with a relatively discrete problem. While chapters 1 and 2 constitute necessary starting points in situating the concerns of the book as a whole, the reader will find that, thereafter, each chapter can be read relatively independently of those adjacent to it. On the whole, however, I think that the chapters are best read in the order in which I have placed them. For there is a consistency of purpose running through the book: to contribute to the development of a logic for literary analysis that will be adequately social and historical in its orientations. While I have assumed that the commitment to such a project is now sufficiently shared for this purpose to require no extensive elaboration or defence, my study is also premised on the conviction that this intention is not so easily realised as is commonly supposed. Even where a socialising and historicising logic is espoused, it is often incompletely sustained owing to the inherited weight of formalist and idealist categories and procedures which, when they are not carefully scrutinised, insinuate their way into the analysis, deflecting it from its objectives.
這本書已經醞釀了很長時間了。我第一次開始工作是在1983年。然而，由於其他壓力，我很少能夠一次投入超過幾天的時間從事這項工作，有時不得不把它放在一邊——在我的檔案櫃裡惡化了幾個月。這些話與書的形式有關係。當很明顯，我應該適應這本書的概念，以適應這些工作或完全放棄項目的情況，我決定在一個偶然的組織原則。因此，我與其提出一個在各章累積的連續論點，不如在每一章中尋求處理一個相對離散的問題。雖然第1章和第2章構成了將書作為一個整體的關注點作為必要的起點，但讀者會發現，此後，每章都可以相對獨立地閱讀。然而，總的來說，我認為最好按我放置這些章節的順序閱讀這些章節。因為書中有一個目的的一致性：為文學分析邏輯的發展做出貢獻，該邏輯將充分符合社會和歷史的方向。雖然我認為，現在為此目的充分分擔了對這樣一個項目的承諾，不需要廣泛的闡述或辯護，但我的研究也基於這樣一種信念，即這一意圖並非像通常所說的那樣容易實現。即使支持社會化和歷史化邏輯，由於形式主義和理想主義的繼承性，這些類別和程序的繼承性往往不能完全維持下去，而當它們沒有經過仔細審查時，它們就暗示著它們進入分析，使其偏離目標。
It is partly for this reason that the book takes the form of a critical dialogue with the concerns of Marxist literary theory. Whatever its shortcomings, this remains the most fully developed and sustained tradition of theorising concerned with literary practices in their social and historical connections. Indeed, I had originally envisaged my intention as that of offering a revised version of Marxist literary theory, one which would better equip it to realise its socialising and historicising aspirations. In the course of writing, however, it became increasingly clear that Marxism’s claim to provide a framework for the development of a comprehensive social and historical theory of literature can no longer be sustained. While, in thus rejecting Marxism’s totalising pretensions, my arguments are post-Marxist in conception, they are certainly not intended as anti-Marxist—although I have no doubt some die-hards will see them that way—but rather aim for a more selective and localised use of Marxist concepts and categories. However, little purpose is served by my seeking to anticipate the reader’s judgement on these matters. It will perhaps be more helpful if, instead, I outline the organising principles of the book. Part I offers a general review of a range of connected problems within Marxist literary theory viewed in the light of their relations to some of the more generally problematic aspects of Marxist thought as a whole. Each of the following sections then focuses on a particular region of Marxist literary-theoretical debate. The chapters comprising part II thus deal with difficulties associated with Marxist conceptions of the social determination of literary forms. Part III then addresses the problems associated with Marxist theories of the specificity of literature and of the aesthetic, while the chapters comprising part IV focus on Marxist conceptions of criticism, and the reasons for considering these incapable of supporting much beyond a politics of grand gestures. I do not, in developing these concerns, offer a comprehensive history of Marxist literary theory or attempt to differentiate its various sub-branches in any detail. While not denying the importance of either consideration, my purpose has rather been to identify those difficulties which subtend the main schools of Marxist literary theory in spite of their differences in other respects. Nor have I attempted an overall assessment of Marxist contributions to literary theory considered in their relations to contending bodies of literary theory. Rather, I have drawn on these where relevant to the point under discussion, and usually as a means of providing a critical perspective on, or alternative to, Marxist formulations. While the reader will find that my arguments are informed by perspectives culled (often opportunistically) from post-structuralism, deconstruction and Foucaultian theory, there is no attempt to buy in to these positions as totalities or to oppose, and prefer them, to Marxist thought in some holistic way. For reasons outlined as the study develops, there are good grounds for resisting this type of theorising.
部分原因，該書以批判對話的形式與馬克思主義文學理論的關注。不管它的缺點是什麼，這仍然是最充分和持續的傳統，與文學實踐有關的社會和歷史聯繫。事實上，我最初設想我的意圖是提供馬克思主義文學理論的修訂版，這樣可以更好地使其實現社會化和歷史化的願望。然而，在寫作過程中，越來越明顯的是，馬克思主義關於為發展綜合性社會歷史文學理論提供框架的主張已不能持久。雖然，在拒絕馬克思主義的完全自命不凡，我的論點是後馬克思主義的概念，他們肯定不是作為反馬克思主義的意圖-雖然我毫不懷疑一些頑固將看到他們這樣-而是旨在一個更有選擇性和馬克思主義概念和範疇的本地化使用。不過，我期望讀者對這些事項作出判斷，卻無濟於事。相反，如果我概述這本書的組織原則，也許會更有用。第一部分從馬克思主義文學理論中一系列聯繫問題入手，從馬克思主義思想整體上一些比較普遍的問題方面入手，對馬克思主義文學理論中的一系列相關問題進行了概括性回顧。以下各節將集中討論馬克思主義文學理論辯論的某一特定領域。第二部分的章節涉及馬克思主義對文學形式社會決定觀念的難點。第三部分論述了馬克思主義文學和美學理論的相關問題，第四部分的章節側重於馬克思主義批評觀，以及思考這些不能支持遠遠超出大姿態的政治。在闡述這些關切時，我不提供馬克思主義文學理論的全面歷史，也不試圖對其各個分支進行詳細區分。雖然不否認這兩種考慮的重要性，但我的目的還是找出那些困難，這些困難在馬克思主義文學理論的主要流派中，儘管它們在其他方面存在差異。我也沒有嘗試過對馬克思主義對文學理論的貢獻進行整體評估，從他們的關係中考慮到與文學理論的爭辯主體的關係。相反，我借鑑了與所討論點有關的這些觀點，通常作為對馬克思主義的提法提供批判性觀點或替代馬克思主義提法的一種手段。雖然讀者會發現，我的論點是由後結構主義、解構主義和福柯爾理論中挑選的觀點（通常是機會主義的）來知的，但人們並沒有試圖接受這些立場作為整體或反對，而傾向於它們，以某種整體的方式對馬克思主義思想。由於研究發展的原因，有充分理由抵制這種理論研究。
The period of writing this book coincided with a major change in my working circumstances. The early stages of research and drafting were begun while I worked at the Open University in Britain. The bulk of the writing, however, was completed while working at Griffith University in Australia. My work, for better or worse, has undoubtedly been influenced by these changed circumstances, and particularly by the (in my experience) uniquely invigorating climate of literary—theoretical debate which prevails at Griffith. Although I have not explicitly discussed the contents of this book as a whole with any of my Griffith colleagues, it has, in part, been shaped as a result of conversations on the topics it addresses as well as by the practical experience of working together in planning and designing courses. I have learned much from David Saunders’s developing work on the relations between law and literature, as also from Colin Mercer’s work on the cultural technologies of popular entertainment. I am especially grateful to Dugald Williamson whose scrupulous criticisms of Lacan helped convince me that, at least for my purposes, I could leave this body of theory by the wayside. I am also indebted to Jeffrey Minson and Ian Hunter whose work has obliged me to approach Foucault’s work and its implications for literary scholarship more seriously and open-mindedly than I was previously wont to. Working in Australia has also allowed me to come to know and share ideas with John Frow, a rewarding experience on both counts. Special mention should also be made of Anne Freadman, whose work on genre I draw on substantially in chapter 4, and of Noel King, whose critical comments and encouraging support I have greatly valued. I am especially grateful to both Frow and King for obliging me to be more circumspect in interpreting my title.
這本書的寫作期正好與我工作環境的重大變化相吻合。當我在英國開放大學工作時，研究和起草的早期階段就開始了。然而，大部分的寫作是在澳大利亞格里菲斯大學工作時完成的。無論好壞，我的工作無疑都受到這些變化環境的影響，特別是（以我的經驗）獨特的文學氛圍——在格里菲斯盛行的理論辯論。雖然我沒有明確討論這本書的內容，作為一個整體與我格里菲斯的任何同事，它的形成，部分由於對話的主題，以及合作在規劃和設計課程。我從大衛·桑德斯關於法律與文學之間關係的發展工作中學到很多東西，也從科林·默瑟關於大眾娛樂文化技術的工作中學到了很多東西。我特別感謝杜加爾德·威廉姆森，他一絲不苟地批評拉坎，這讓我相信，至少就我的目的而言，我可以把這個理論放在一邊。我也感謝傑弗裡·明森和伊恩·亨特，他們的作品迫使我以比我之前所沒有的更認真、更開明的態度對待福柯的作品及其對文學學術的影響。在澳大利亞工作也讓我認識了約翰·弗羅，並分享了想法，在這兩個方面都是一次有益的經歷。還應特別提到安妮·弗萊德曼，她的作品在第4章中大量借鑑了流派，諾埃爾·金，我非常重視他的批評意見和鼓勵支持。我特別感謝弗羅和金都讓我在解釋我的頭銜時更加謹慎。
Many of the chapters which follow were first presented in draft form at more places than I can remember. As is always the case, I have learned much from these occasions. Particular thanks, however, are due to Stephen Knight and Ken Ruthven, both for their comments on two such occasions as well as for their help and support in other matters. Special thanks, also, to those who commented on an early version of chapter 4 as a result of its presentation at the 1988 conference of the Australian and South Pacific Association of Comparative Literary Studies. There are some longer-term debts which should be acknowledged, too. To Graham Martin, a special thanks for his interest, help, encouragement and friendship over the years. And, to Terry Eagleton, a tribute to his unending ability to keep the doors of debate and communication open in spite of disagreements. I should also like to thank James Donald for his editorial input to chapter 9 which—although I resisted his suggestions at the time—is considerably improved as a consequence. I should like, finally, to express my deep appreciation of Raymond Williams’s work. His death, in early 1988, was an incalculable loss. Although, now, their limitations are apparent, his early studies still rank as pioneering in the work they have subsequently made possible. Just as important, he was always prepared to respond positively to new intellectual and political challenges, and, in doing so, played a crucial role in helping prevent debate polarise around entrenched positions. Along with many of my generation, my debt to Williams is inestimable—all the more so for the fact that, at times, his help took a personal rather than just theoretical form. His ability to dismantle himself of the robes of his prestige and to show, to all who came into contact with him, an unfailing democratic consideration and kindness is as worthy of commemoration as his writings. Some of the chapters published here have appeared elsewhere. Chapter 6 was first published in Thesis Eleven, no. 12, 1985. Chapter 8 first appeared in a special issue of Poetics on Literary Theory in Australia, published in 1988, while chapter 9 was first published in New Formations, no. 2, summer, 1987. I am grateful to the editors and publishers of these journals for their permission to reprint these materials here. While I have avoided the temptation to modify these articles for the occasion of their publication in this volume I should perhaps indicate that the opening tone of chapter 6 now strikes me as regrettably iconoclastic. The process of writing, of course, accounts for only a part of the work involved in making a book. My special thanks, therefore, to Judith Davies, Robyn Skaar and Karen Yarrow in the Division of Humanities at Griffith University for translating my initial scribblings and subsequent revisions into a presentable form. Thanks, also, to the administrative staff of the Division for making this kind of support possible. And books need publishers. Thanks, therefore, to Janice Price for her work in creating a publishing context which has promoted the concerns of literary theory so well, and for her patience in waiting for this book to be produced. There are, finally, some debts which can never be properly acknowledged. I owe Sue far more than a note of thanks for supporting and encouraging me in completing this book. But she knows that. So it will be enough, here, to record that without her help and understanding, there would have been nothing to write a preface for. And, to Tanya, Oliver and James: thanks for not staying out of the study and for making life infinitely richer and more rewarding than it would otherwise be.
以下許多章節最初以草稿形式呈現在我記得的更多地方。和往常一樣，我從這些場合中學到了很多東西。然而，特別要感謝斯蒂芬·奈特和肯·魯斯文，他們兩次在兩次這樣的場合的評論，以及他們在其它問題上的幫助和支持。還特別感謝那些因在澳大利亞和南太平洋比較文學研究協會1988年會議上介紹第4章的早期版本而評論該章的人。還有一些長期債務也應該得到承認。感謝格雷厄姆·馬丁多年來對他的關心、幫助、鼓勵和友誼。對特里·伊格爾頓，這是對他無休止地保持辯論和溝通大門打開的敬意，儘管存在分歧。我還要感謝詹姆斯·唐納德對第9章的社論投入，儘管當時我拒絕他的建議，但結果有了很大的改善。最後，我想對雷蒙德·威廉姆斯的工作表示深深的讚賞。1988年初，他的去世是難以估量的損失。雖然，現在，他們的侷限性是顯而易見的，他的早期研究仍然排名先驅的工作，他們後來使成為可能。同樣重要的是，他總是準備積極應對新的知識和政治挑戰，並在這樣做時發揮了關鍵作用，有助於防止圍繞根深蒂固的立場進行辯論兩極分化。和我們這一代人一樣，我對威廉姆斯的債務是不可估量的——更何況，有時他的幫助只是個人幫助，而不僅僅是理論形式。他的能力，拆除自己的長袍，他的威望，並顯示，所有誰與他接觸一個不折不扣的民主考慮和仁慈是值得紀念的，因為他的著作。這裡發表的一些章節也出現在其他地方。第6章首次發表在1985年第12期《第十一章》上。第8章首次出現於1988年出版的《澳大利亞文學理論詩學》特刊上，第9章首次發表在1987年夏季第2期《新形成》上。我感謝這些期刊的編輯和出版商允許在這裡轉載這些材料。雖然我避免在本卷中刊登這些文章時修改這些文章的誘惑，但我或許應該指出，第6章的開場白現在讓我感到令人遺憾地具有標誌性。當然，寫作過程只佔寫書工作的一部分。因此，我特別感謝格里菲斯大學人文系的朱迪思·戴維斯、羅賓·斯卡爾和卡倫·雅羅，感謝他們把我最初的塗鴉和隨後的修改翻譯成一種可呈現的形式。也感謝該司的行政人員使這種支助成為可能。書籍需要出版商。因此，感謝詹妮絲·普萊斯在創造出版環境方面所做的工作，這極大地促進了文學理論的關注，並感謝她耐心地等待這本書的出版。最後，有些債務是永遠不能得到適當承認的。我欠蘇的不僅僅是感謝我支持和鼓勵我完成這本書。但她知道因此，在這裡，記錄沒有她的幫助和理解就足夠了，將沒有什麼可以寫序言。對坦妮婭，奧利弗和詹姆斯：謝謝你沒有離開學習，讓生活無限豐富，回報。
閱讀更多 李vincent 的文章
