What are the roles of literature as stated above?

Literature has three basic social roles are: cognitive role, educational role, aesthetic role of literature, aesthetic education is through the intuitive way of reading the subject of the role of the readers, who enter the aesthetic realm of reading, the readers are holding "nothing to do and for" mentality, is to take the work of literature as an independent and insulated imagery to look at. This does not include any practical purpose or scientific understanding. Because of this, the role of literature in aesthetic education is very different from the role of literature in cognition and indoctrination. In the author's opinion, when we talk about the aesthetic educational role of literature, we should not cover the cognitive and edifying role of literature. Even the entertainment role of literature, although it is closely related to aesthetic education, should also distinguish between the aesthetic and non-aesthetic factors, so that it is more conducive to our reading and appreciation of literature, but also more conducive to guiding students to read and appreciate literature. People's understanding of things is to grasp in a rational way, with a scientific analysis of the method, the purpose is to guide people to understand society, to understand nature, to understand life, the influence of literature on people's mind world certainly has the role of understanding in this regard, but this is not the main function of literature, not to mention its essential features. The role of literature in indoctrination is of course obvious, and the ruling classes of all ages have made use of this function of literature to rule the minds of the working people. However, due to the obvious political purpose of this way of indoctrination, it is determined to be fundamentally different from aesthetic education. For thousands of years, the deep-rooted "micro-linguistic" interpretation of the function of literature in Chinese Confucian culture has always treated literature as an appendage of politics and morality. "The saying, "There are no words without learning poetry," does not mean that people should build their lives in a poetic way and speak with a poetic touch, but that poetry, as a political and moral classic, in which many verses have become political and moral maxims, can be very effectively applied to the affairs of the state and the nation. Many of its verses have become political and moral maxims, which can be effectively applied to social interactions between nations and between people. Although people also value the "literary" color of these poems, they are still incompatible with the modern sense of aesthetic approach. "Poetry can be a source of excitement, a source of admiration, a source of social interaction, and a source of resentment. It can be used to serve the father near and the ruler far, and it can be used to recognize the names of birds, animals, grass, and trees." These few sentences mainly talk about the cognitive and edifying functions of the Book of Poetry. Obviously, Confucius at that time did not treat the Book of Poetry as a literary style to expound. However, Confucianism's tradition of interpreting literary functions in the form of "micro-phrases" has had a far-reaching influence, and to this day, some of us are still far from jumping out of this cage in our understanding of the aesthetic and educational role of literature. The fact that the role of cognition and indoctrination is included in the role of aesthetic education is a strong proof of this. This kind of recognition, indoctrination and aesthetic role of literary function of the interpretation of the indiscriminate mix together, greatly weakened the role of aesthetic education of literature. Its obvious legacy is that when people read literary works, they do not pay attention to their aesthetic form, but to their ideological content in the first place; people's absorption of literary works is not a feeling experience, but an understanding cognition; people do not accept the formal beauty of literature, but are subconsciously influenced by the content of the works, but rather, on the basis of the preconceived idea of the theme, do a precise "scientific" style of the content of the works. On the basis of the preconceived idea of the theme, they make a precise "scientific" analysis of the content of the work, so as to achieve the purpose of "indoctrination". People have neglected the artistic characteristics of literary works, disregarded its multiple meanings, ambiguity, subjectivity and uncertainty, and given it more of a one-dimensional interpretation and objective conclusions. In short, under the premise of emphasizing the cognitive and edifying role of literary works, the distinction between literature and other styles of writing has been blurred, with understanding transgressing feeling, and cognition replacing perception, so that the benefits of literary reading and education have been greatly reduced. As a result, people are not accustomed to aesthetic appreciation, but are keen on analyzing and generalizing; thus, "novels reflect ...... the social reality", "plays expose the... ...system", "Poetry expresses the ...... spirit", "Prose spreads the... ... ideas" These hegemonic discourse styles have been lingering like black clouds over the field of literary interpretation. Especially when it comes to literary education for the next generation, the perspective of language teachers in interpreting literary works cannot get out of the realm of old literary theories that are subject to the mainstream consciousness, and they have an aging conception of the relationship between form and content, the relationship between thinking and language, and the relationship between image and life, with a lack of modern consciousness; most of the teachers know very little about new theories of literary interpretation, such as ontological hermeneutics and acceptance of aesthetics, and they cannot guide their students' interpretation of literature with a new vision. Most teachers know little about the new theories of literary interpretation such as ontological hermeneutics and receptive aesthetics, and are unable to guide students to read and appreciate literary works with a new vision. The aesthetic education of literature acts on the reading subject through the intuitive way. Whenever reading enters the aesthetic realm, the readers hold the mentality of "doing nothing" and treat the literary work as an independent and insulated image, which doesn't contain any practical purpose and scientific understanding. Because of this, the role of literature's aesthetic education and the role of literature's understanding and edification are very different. The author thinks that when we talk about the aesthetic-educational role of literature, the cognitive and edifying roles of literature should not be covered. Even the entertainment role of literature, although it is closely related to aesthetic education, should also distinguish between the aesthetic and non-aesthetic factors, so that it is more conducive to our reading and appreciation of literature, but also more conducive to guiding students to read and appreciate literature. People's understanding of things is to grasp in a rational way, with a scientific analysis of the method, the purpose is to guide people to understand society, to understand nature, to understand life, the influence of literary works on people's mind world certainly have this understanding of the role, but this is not the main function of the literary works, much less its essential features. The role of literature in indoctrination is of course obvious, and the ruling classes of all ages have made use of this function of literature to rule the minds of the working people. However, due to the obvious political purpose of this way of indoctrination, it is determined to be fundamentally different from aesthetic education. For thousands of years, the deep-rooted "micro-linguistic" interpretation of the function of literature in Chinese Confucian culture has always treated literature as an appendage of politics and morality. "The saying, "There are no words without learning poetry," does not mean that people should build their lives in a poetic way and speak with a poetic touch, but that poetry, as a political and moral classic, in which many verses have become political and moral maxims, can be very effectively applied to the affairs of the state and the nation. Many of its verses have become political and moral maxims, which can be effectively applied to social interactions between nations and between people. Although people also value the "literary" color of these poems, they are still incompatible with the modern sense of aesthetic style. "Poetry can be a source of excitement, a source of admiration, a source of social interaction, and a source of resentment. It can be used to serve the father near and the ruler far, and it can be used to recognize the names of birds, animals, grass, and trees." These few sentences mainly talk about the cognitive and edifying functions of the Book of Poetry. Obviously, Confucius at that time did not treat the Book of Poetry as a literary style to be elaborated. However, Confucianism's tradition of interpreting literary functions in the form of "micro-phrases" has had a far-reaching influence, and to this day, some of us are still far from jumping out of this cage in our understanding of the aesthetic and educational role of literature. The fact that the role of cognition and indoctrination is included in the role of aesthetic education is a strong proof of this. This kind of recognition, indoctrination and aesthetic role of literary function of the interpretation of indiscriminately mixed together, greatly weakened the role of aesthetic education of literature. Its obvious legacy is that when people read literary works, they do not pay attention to their aesthetic form, but to their ideological content in the first place; people's absorption of literary works is not a feeling experience, but an understanding cognition; people do not accept the formal beauty of literature, but are subconsciously influenced by the content of the works, but rather, on the basis of the preconceived idea of the theme, do a precise "scientific" style of the content of the works. On the basis of the preconceived idea of the theme, they make a precise "scientific" analysis of the content of the work, so as to achieve the purpose of "indoctrination". People have neglected the artistic characteristics of literary works, disregarded its multiple meanings, ambiguity, subjectivity and uncertainty, and given it more of a one-dimensional interpretation and objective conclusions. In short, under the premise of emphasizing the cognitive and edifying role of literary works, the distinction between literature and other styles of writing has been blurred, with understanding transgressing feeling, and cognition replacing perception, so that the benefits of literary reading and education have been greatly reduced. As a result, people are not accustomed to aesthetic appreciation, but are keen on analyzing and generalizing; thus, "novels reflect ...... the social reality", "plays expose the... ...system", "Poetry expresses the ...... spirit", "Prose spreads the... ... ideas" These hegemonic discourse styles have been lingering like black clouds over the field of literary interpretation. Especially when it comes to literary education for the next generation, the perspective of language teachers in interpreting literary works cannot get out of the realm of old literary theories that are subject to the mainstream consciousness, and they have an aging conception of the relationship between form and content, the relationship between thinking and language, and the relationship between image and life, and a lack of modern consciousness. Most teachers know little about the new theories of literary interpretation such as ontological hermeneutics and receptive aesthetics, and they are unable to guide students to read and appreciate literature with a new vision. The so-called aesthetic function of literature is the function of entertainment, that is, the utility of literary activities to make people happy. Lu Xun, after accepting the Western concept of literature at the beginning of the century, once pointed out, "From the purely literary point of view, the essence of all fine arts is to make the people who watch and listen to them feel happy." He also emphasized the entertainment contained in literature and other "fine arts", i.e., art. China's literary tradition has always emphasized that "literature is the way of the world," and the understanding of the entertainment function of literature has been more limited to the realm of novels, operas, and other non-authentic styles. In the development of modern literature, the political utilitarianism of literature and art has been emphasized for a long time, and the entertainment function of literature and art has been neglected, rejected or even absolutely denied. In recent years, with the development of social life, the entertainment function of literature and art has been gradually recognized and valued, and the rigid face of literature in the past has become amiable. But at the same time there are some misunderstandings that cannot be ignored. One-sided emphasis on the realization of the entertainment function of literature at the physiological level Happiness is a kind of psychological phenomenon, leading to the causes of happiness and the ways to obtain happiness are diverse. Physiological pleasure caused by vision, taste, hearing, etc., is not unique to human beings; animals also have this instinctive function, only that the pleasure itself has no social content. On the other hand, the sense of beauty, as a feeling unique to human beings, is accompanied by rich social content, and is a kind of spiritual pleasure linked to sensual experience and rational understanding. Recreation is a non-utilitarian activity for human beings to obtain pleasure outside of basic survival and production activities, which includes physiological pleasure, but mainly refers to psychological pleasure. It is too narrow an understanding to reduce recreation only to sensual pastime and sensual pleasure, believing that what recreational activities satisfy is only a low-level physiological desire but not a high-level psychological need. We do not rule out the possibility that some forms of human entertainment or some people's entertainment activities are limited to the level of physiological pleasure, but we should not conclude from this that the entertainment function of all literary works can only be or should be kept at this level, and we should not identify ourselves with vulgar, ugly or even vulgar and distorting forms of entertainment and fun, and give up the promotion of healthy, elegant, and perfecting forms of entertainment and fun. Interests. Literature, as a special aesthetic activity, has an obvious entertainment function, but after all, it appears and exists as a social phenomenon and is one of the many practical activities of human beings. It runs through the free and self-conscious character of man, and should be compatible with the basic requirements of human existence, beneficial to the perfection of the survival and development of social life, and achieve the unity of lawfulness and purpose. Therefore, in literary activities, entertainment and rationality, individuality and sociality of entertainment should not be in opposition to each other, and entertainment is not equal to the exclusion of rational thinking, nor is it equal to the exclusion of social content. Literature and other forms of art, like other entertainment, can of course satisfy the senses to a certain extent. But this kind of sensory satisfaction can cause people's thought fatigue, but also can cause the shock of thought and thinking, the key lies in the works with or without profound ideology, lies in the writers to write what, how to write. In our current production of literature and art, many people are keen to show male and female love, highlight incest, adultery, murder, and relish high-level hotels, seaside bathing beaches, luxury villas, so as to stimulate the consumer's visual and auditory senses, causing a strong physiological response. Its purpose is of course linked to the commercial effect caused by this, but it is also not unrelated to the misleading propaganda on the entertainment function, and its negative impact can not be ignored. Isolating and opposing the entertainment and educational functions of literature Some people think that literature in the past mainly played the function of political indoctrination, and now it should mainly be the function of entertainment. This view is one-sided. The entertainment function of literature is not an accidental, peripheral function, nor is it an isolated, single function. It is one of the universal effects inevitably brought about by the aesthetic illumination function of literature, and is one of the many functions of literature. The social function of literature is a multi-level and multi-faceted system: the first level is the function of aesthetic illumination, which is the most basic and core social function determined by the basic nature and characteristics of literature. Only with this basic nature and characteristics are literary works and literary activities real; and only with the factors of this function do they become the social functions of literature. The second level is the other social functions that must be generated by the aesthetic illumination function of literature, which mainly includes the cognitive, educational, recreational and communicative functions. As for the third level, it is the literary functions derived from the first and second levels which are limited by time and space. For example, the function of literature as a weapon of class struggle, the function of literature as a tool of religious propaganda and so on. In this system, entertainment and education are functions derived from the function of aesthetic illumination. If they are treated as the basic functions of literature, it may lead to neglecting or even erasing the own characteristics of literature, thus weakening the social function of literature. What is the purpose of literature and art? This is a long debated question in the history of European literature. Pleasure, edification, or pleasure and edification? Each of the three answers has many supporters. It should be said that the latter is more in line with the general situation. Precisely because it is impossible for a literary work not to reflect the author's thinking about the world and life, it is also impossible for a literary work not to have an ideological impact on the readers and viewers, i.e., to play the function of ideological education. The model theater has an entertainment function, and the so-called pure entertainment films such as "The Story of Qianlong" also have an ideological education function. Although there are individual styles of art or works of art basically does not involve ideology, for example, acrobatics to bring people basically pure technical appreciation. But literature is the most ideological style in various arts. Imagine if the vivid and profound ideological content of literary works is taken away and its ideological and social nature is completely dissolved, leaving only the entertainment, the taste and value of the entertainment function that can be realized will also be greatly reduced. Equate the entertainment function of literature with general entertainment activities Playing ball is entertainment, playing cards is entertainment, watching theater is entertainment, reading novels is also entertainment, various forms of entertainment play a consistent role, that is, to cause happiness, and this activity and human activities with a clear utilitarian purpose is differentiated, such as in extreme fatigue when sleeping, in the hunger and fire when the full meal, can be very happy, but generally do not regard these activities as recreational. At the same time, in the process of participating in or watching these purely recreational activities, which seem to be free from reality and to forget everything, people also gain a certain amount of pleasure of free enjoyment, and there is also the possibility of a certain transcendental experience of reality. In this sense, even in these purely recreational activities, it is entirely possible to include aesthetic elements, and it is clear that recreation and aesthetics are not diametrically opposed to each other. However, various kinds of recreational activities differ in the nature of pleasure gained, the role produced, and so on. Mahjong, billiards, poker and other purely recreational activities to bring people physical stimulation, but it is difficult to say that only physical pleasure. Sitting still all day to play mahjong, dump poker, physiological may not be comfortable, people from these activities are mainly a psychological compensation, pleasure and exhilaration. Unlike the above pure entertainment activities, the pleasure of literature mainly lies in the free enjoyment and aesthetic pleasure through aesthetics. As Velleck said, "The pleasure given by literature is not one chosen at random from a series of possible pleasures, but a 'higher pleasure', a pleasure obtained from a higher activity, that is, from meditative contemplation without desire." From this point of view, the entertainment functions of literature and other recreational activities cannot be equated; the entertainment function of literature and the aesthetic function cannot be completely equated, and just because pleasure is produced by aesthetics, it cannot be assumed that aesthetics is equal to entertainment, and that the essential characteristic of literature and art is entertainment. These entertainment functions of literature cannot and should not replace the role of other forms of entertainment. Therefore, literature should not be required to play the same entertainment function as other forms of entertainment such as mahjong and poker. Such a demand is inappropriate and unrealistic. Without a clear consciousness of this, it is easy to promote the tendency of pandering in the production of literature. One-sidedly emphasizing the self-entertainment function of literary creation activities and neglecting the social effect of literary entertainment After the mid-1980s, some people in the literary circles in China emphasized the self-entertainment function of literature, and regarded literature as the writer's "game", the so-called "playing literature", and the so-called "writing is my entertainment" and so on are the reflections of this tendency. Literature does have not only the function of entertaining people, but also the function of self-entertainment. Bai Juyi once described the relationship between himself and his poet friends in this way: "Small passages are to be admonished by poetry, small poverty is to be encouraged by poetry, to be comforted by poetry, and to be entertained by poetry when living together." It can be seen that even in the ancient people who emphasized the utilitarian nature of literature, writing and reading poetry can also be a kind of entertainment; however, the author of writing self-entertainment is a personal matter, writing and friends to entertain each other is a matter between individuals, outsiders often do not know and difficult to comment on; and most of the writers of the work is not only for themselves or a few people to see, usually always published or published, to be read by the public, to buy, to achieve the efficacy of the amusement of the people. And self-entertainment and entertainment are not detached from each other, what kind of self-entertainment pursuit, naturally there will be what kind of entertainment effect. In this way, self-entertainment interest of the high and low Wen Ye's points can not help but and entertainment of social effects together. The entertainment requirements of different audiences are different. The connotation of entertainment is multi-layered and multi-faceted, and it is also multi-layered and multi-faceted as far as individual's interest in entertainment is concerned. Therefore, whether a work of literature and art can play the function of entertainment, what kind of entertainment function it can play, and how much entertainment function it can play depends not only on the work itself, but also on the attitude of the receiver, i.e., how the receiver looks at the work and treats the work. As far as social groups are concerned, the needs are also multi-level and multi-faceted. Appreciators of symphonic music and stargazers of popular music derive pleasure from their respective appreciation activities. The street corner game player and the golf ball wrestler both get pleasure from their respective participation. Readers of Western modernist literature and classical Chinese novels both equally appreciate the marvelous splendor of literature from the black and white of the page. However, these pleasures are markedly different. Authors should not ignore the diversity of readers' interests and requirements and stoop to the vulgar, let alone impose their own not noble and healthy artistic interests on the readers. Needless to say, while overcoming years of ascetic bias, hedonistic tendencies in life and culture are growing in our society. Hedonism takes the pursuit of sensual pleasure as the only valuable goal of life, while cultural hedonism regards the fulfillment of sensual pleasure as the only function and the highest goal of culture, interpreting the advanced and complex aesthetic process as simple and vulgar sensual stimulation and reaction. All kinds of one-sided understanding of the function of entertainment in literature are adapted to the needs of the development of this cultural hedonism, hindering the construction and development of advanced culture, which can not help but attract our attention and attention.