戰時台灣文壇：「世界文學體系」的一個案例研究

Abstract

近年來，不少學者試圖發展出一套不具排他性的分析架構來重新討論「世界文學」。然而，雖然經過了後殖民主義和多元文化論述的洗禮，在實踐的層面來說，東亞地區現代文學受重視的程度，至今仍然無法與曾經直接受到西方殖民統治的地區所產生的作品─諸如英語語系、法語語系的「新興文學」─相提並論。一個重要原因是：我們缺少將東亞地區視為一個整體、辨認並釐清具有區域性共同特質的文學發展動力、流通路徑、和演化模式的系統性綜合考察。本文由「體制」的角度出發，來檢視戰時台灣文學場域的重構和一些關鍵性美學議題，目的是想進一步歸納出與強勢西方文化發生碰撞之後的現代東亞社會裡經常出現的幾種文學發展模態。此篇案例研究所討論的內容包括：受外力影響重新組構的文學場域；強制性的場域疆界重劃及其效應；具有競爭關係的「美學位置」的形成；受西方影響而凝聚於「藝術自主性」信念的美學群體；片段交叉的多重美學譜系；非常時期的「情感結構」與文學參與者的應對策略。

In recent years, many scholars have tried to develop a set of nonexclusivist frameworks to re-discuss “world literature”. Despite the pervasive impact of postcolonialist and multiculturalist discourses, however, the attention paid to modern literatures from the East Asian region pales in comparison to studies of the Anglophone and Francophone literatures produced in former Western colonies. This is caused, in my view, not only by a knowledge deficit, in terms of empirical facts, but also by a lack of systematic examination of the distinctive dynamics, internal cross-currents, and shared patterns of modern literary development within the region. A sociologically oriented approach promises to fruitfully address this issue. This article treats the development of the literary field in wartime Taiwan as a case study. It examines some key aesthetic issues related to the restructuring of the literary field during the first few years of the 1940s, with the ultimate goal of identifying some commonly seen modalities of literary developments in modern East Asian societies. For instance, as latecomers to the modern world, these societies are frequently subject to political interventions resulting in paradigmatic shifts in cultural production, including drastic restructuring of the literary field through a new set of principles of inclusion and exclusion. Rather than focusing on violence against arbitrarily excluded literary agents, it is time to also more systematically investigate the structural forces that enable cultural production in the new period. Also, the field, restructured by extrinsically and arbitrarily motivated forces, nonetheless assumes structural qualities essential to its normative model, and as a result the political power dynamics are mediated by aesthetic positions, albeit emphatically in a sociohistorically inflected manner. Moreover, the competing aesthetic positions within the field inevitably register influences from literary models of the hegemonic West, and therefore it is imperative for scholars to carefully trace the multilayered genealogies of these positions. Another notable feature deserving attention is that, as a majority of East Asian cultural fields in reality enjoy a rather low degree of autonomy, their participants must deploy different kinds of coping strategies to fend off immediate pressures, and as a result develop certain types of habitus. The situation becomes even more strained when society enters a state of emergency, and even a minimum degree of cultural normalcy can no longer be maintained.