What is a new mosaic?

Mosaicism: the basic trend of western literary criticism theory in 2 1 century

Yan Jia

one

The reason why I call the western literary criticism theory towards the 2 1 century "mosaic" is based on the following circumstances: at present, I am editing a representative collection of contemporary western literary theories and criticisms, which is called "The Frontier Reader of Literary Theory". From the information I have come into contact with, I divide the western attention in this field into five aspects: (1) the modern progress of the traditional problems of literary theory; (2) Literary history and classical criticism; (3) the expansion of literary theory and criticism space; (4) the end of literary theory and "post-learning"; (5) Literary theory and identity. These five questions are not my own fiction, but are summarized according to their overall trends and hot issues of concern. Of course, this is not the whole field. For example, "Anglicization" and "New English Writing" are important fields of British and American literary theory and criticism in the post-colonial era. However, for China's literary theory and criticism, such a field seems to be far from our theoretical vision.

On the other hand, as far as any one of them is concerned, we can also find that although they are concerned about the same problem, their positions, starting points, theoretical resources, discussion methods and conclusions are very different. In other words, their views on the same issue are extremely "diversified" and they can hardly find any main theme. For example, in the aspect of "the expansion of literary theory and criticism space", we can see a variety of criticism methods: diaspora criticism, gender and super-gender criticism, colored female criticism, ethical criticism, ecological criticism, spatial criticism, network criticism, ghost criticism, materialism criticism, new pragmatics, chaos theory and so on.

These situations tell us that in the post-modern consumption era, western literary theory and criticism have already bid farewell to the modern and pre-modern context and basic pattern, that is, there is always a dominant ideological trend or theory that dominates the trend of literary theory and criticism and affects the ideology of society. If we must find a theme in the western literary theory and criticism towards the 2 1 century, then we will find all kinds of "mosaic" characteristics, which I call "mosaicism". Its basic meaning means that all kinds of theoretical viewpoints and critical methods are mixed together, and there is no internal connection between them, and their respective perspectives and concerns are very different, forming a "noisy" situation.

Mosaicism is a typical feature of post-modernism and a basic feature of western ideology and culture today. Externally, on the one hand, postmodern "Mosaicism" pursues "multiple ratio" in order to resist the control or manipulation of mainstream ideology; On the other hand, it is "fragmentation", that is, it does not aim at building a grand theoretical system, but often discusses a problem (such as "gender") from a special angle or deconstructs traditional theories, or even breaks the boundaries of disciplines.

How to treat this trend? My point of view is that the emergence of mosaic doctrine conforms to the basic trend of contemporary capitalism, that is, the transformation from Fordism to flexible production and accumulation, as well as cultural consumerism and postmodernism. At present, this trend is still evolving, and its influence and consequences are gradually emerging, and it has penetrated into all cultures and regions of the world with the trend of capital globalization. In this regard, we should base ourselves on the reality of China and make a sober judgment, instead of blindly following it to find "hot" issues of theory and criticism. Western "hot spots" are not necessarily China's "hot spots"; or vice versa, Dallas to the auditorium

two

In the context of mosaicism, "final conclusion" or "death theory" seems to be a very attractive field. For example, we often see topics such as "death of theory", "death of criticism", "death of author" and "death of history". In fact, in this series of "end" or "death" topics, we can clearly see the author's intention, that is, they always stand on one theoretical position to confront or deconstruct another theory, instead of completely denying theory and criticism. For example, John Bass, a famous American writer, once wrote an influential article "Exhausted Literature", which triggered the so-called "death of criticism" in western literary criticism. However, when we read Bath's articles carefully, we will find that Bath's real intention is to challenge "realism" (which is usually translated as "realism" in China, but this is actually a great misunderstanding), but his purpose of challenging is to open up another "new space" for literary creation. To achieve this goal, we must first challenge the traditional concept of "literature" and whether it is literature in the overall sense. There are many such examples.

Faced with such a situation, we must soberly introspect: What are the real intentions of the authors of the "final conclusion" or "death theory", that is, what do they actually challenge? For example, do they want to challenge tradition, classics, literary theory and criticism itself, or do they want to challenge some old established concepts in literary theory and criticism? If we carefully interpret their intentions, the conclusion is likely to be the latter, not the former.

On the other hand, the only way to deconstruct theory is to use the weapon of theory. This paradox itself shows that theory (including criticism) cannot be "deconstructed". Harold bloom's "Western Classics" opposes the theorization of literature and art and insists on the viewpoint of "the opposition between art and theory". However, the weapons he used to oppose "theorization" were 18 and 19 th century romantic literary theories, especially the literary theories represented by Rousseau, whose core was to advocate "aesthetic freedom", which actually opposed "theory" with "aesthetics". However, the so-called "aesthetics" needs to be defined by "theory"; Once defined by "theory", "aesthetics" falls into the trap of "theory".

In fact, since the 20th century, there has been a strong anti-theory (including "rationality") tendency in western literary theory. This fact reminds us that "theory" is actually a double-edged sword-it needs to reflect and summarize the practice of artistic creation (so-called "theorization"). Once generalized, it seems to form a tangible or intangible "control" on actual creation and a certain "threat" to the artist's personality.

In my opinion, this paradox may be something we can never get rid of. If we can't get rid of this paradox, that is, we are obsessed with the contradiction between theory and practice, or we always think that theory is higher than practice, then we will never get out of this strange circle. Perhaps the only way out is that we must make clear the mission of the theory itself, that is, it will construct a value system in its own way, instead of "directly guiding" the creative practice, or worse, "teaching" the creation and writers. In fact, what we see from the various "challenges" of contemporary western literary criticism theory is a rebellion against the attitude that "theory" tries to teach "believers" as "priests". If China's literary criticism theorists want to draw any lessons from the contemporary western literary criticism theory, I'm afraid this is the biggest lesson.

three

Tradition is also an important issue in the mosaic background. We have long been told that western literary theories and criticisms since the 20th century have been called "anti-tradition". On the surface, it is. From Baudelaire's modernism to today's postmodernism, tradition has always been the main target of various theorists and artists who flaunt "innovation". This example speaks for itself.

However, when we carefully read the works of theorists (from Nietzsche to Foucault and Lyotard) who are famous for their "anti-tradition", we can actually find an amazing fact: once they talk about "tradition", they are like a few treasures (Foucault's genealogy of knowledge is a typical example). The road they took was: from "tradition" to resisting "tradition". This effect can be fatal.

Perhaps Frank Kermode's article Classics and Times revealed some "inside information" to us. He believes that classics always collude with power, and power shapes the "past" for mainstream ideology and makes it "modern". Therefore, classics have become the main areas that rebels must occupy in the struggle against power. In my opinion, this view just shows the main mentality of most anti-traditionalists in contemporary western literary criticism theory. Perhaps the problem is not really to seize any "power", but to regard it as a "gesture". We know that in the post-modern era, "posture" often wins applause and applause more than any real building, and people are often immersed in applause and applause and are no longer willing to take care of other things.

This trend is something we need to be alert to. The reasons are: on the one hand, tradition has always been the resource we must rely on for theoretical construction and theoretical rebellion; Whether in China or in the West, this is inevitable. On the other hand, tradition is difficult to "reverse". Just as deconstruction theory relies on theoretical weapons, anti-tradition often relies on tradition. For China's literary criticism theorists, the problem that is particularly noteworthy and different from the West is that we have developed a habit of not returning to tradition since the late Qing Dynasty. I am afraid there is still a long way to go to reverse this trend.

In addition, we find that contemporary western literary criticism theory attaches great importance to the interpretation of "text" and rarely talks about "theory" like a runaway wild horse. This is also a big difference between "them" and "us". When they talk about feminism, they always quote influential masterpieces. When they talk about "ghost criticism", they will also quote the representative works of ghost criticism in detail. In fact, the "close reading" method pioneered by the British and American "New Criticism" has been widely accepted by the British and American academic circles and has become the most basic link in academic training. As a theorist, the first thing is not whether you can talk about a certain theory or theoretical system, but to gain some "insights" from the basic skills of "intensive reading". In other words, the construction of theory depends not on empty talk, but on the insight into "text".

In a word, the theory of western literary criticism towards the 2 1 century is neither so bad nor so monolithic as we imagined. It is constantly developing and evolving, including cutting-edge "pioneers" and conservative traditionalists, but most of them are middle-of-the-road people: they don't want to take the traditional old road, are confused about the new direction, and prefer to choose a path of pragmatism and positivism to become independent individuals in the whole mosaic. In addition, their sensitivity to various new trends in practice also deserves our reflection.