島田謹二文學史書寫的暗面

Abstract

在島田謹二的文學史論述中，其對「寫實主義」的關注常遭忽略，但他對異國情調的討論，乃至於他以在台日人為主的論述關懷，卻使他成為戰後本土文學史論述的他者。此外，在「糞寫實主義」論爭中，西川滿與濱田隼雄看似接承島田的論述邏輯，對張文環、呂赫若冠以普羅文學之帽， 藉此打壓其文學價值。他們的批判與島田謹二的立論基礎多所扞格。其一，他們擴大了島田對於「外地文學」的指涉對象。二，他們延伸島田文論的政治操作，欲藉此壓抑地方文化，企圖重新整編文壇走向回歸日本傳統，也與島田寫作外地文學史時參照法國外地文學的發展模型，取法有別。從島田文學史的論述位置與影響來看，由外部評述至其論述本身與其在當時的影響，有三層暗面： 一是因他對台灣作家的忽視，以及對異國情調的關照，而遭致批評。這是以台灣作家為論述主體時，評家所照見的島田論述的缺失；其次，島田以法國殖民地文學研究基礎為其論述參照系，建立一套以文學內容為主的論述，但這樣的研究取徑，深刻影響他對在台日人的文學評價，這是其論述自身的暗面；三，則是島田對於具普羅文學遺風之寫實主義的評價，亦被借用為糞寫實主義論爭中主戰者的主要觀點。這是當在台日人爭奪文壇主導權時，島田的文學史論述在文壇內部照出的陰影。

Discussionsin Taiwanese literary history generally label Kinji Shimada as an ”other”, with native critics ignoring his concern for ”realism”, and focus on his discussion of exoticism in colonial literature. In addition, critics claim his literary historical essays are unrepresentative of literature history during Taiwan`s colonial period, because he focused on the Japanese colonialists while ignoring native Taiwanese writers.Shimada`s concept of realism was incorporated into the ”kuso riarizumu” (feces realism) debate by Nishikawa Mitsuru and Kamada Hayao, who labeled Zhang Wen-huan and Lu He-ruo as proletarian writers. In fact, they expanded the object of Shimada`s definition of colonial literature. Even though Shimada did not appreciate proletarian realism, Nishikawa Mitsuru and Kamada Hayao have deliberately manipulated the political aspects of Shimada`s work to suppress native culture and reorganize the field of colonial literature to match traditional Japanese literary trends.External reviews of the discussions on Shimada`s literature history have three negative aspects. First,