Ideology And Paradigm Shift

The dissertation is to take a close examination on the outlooks of several scholars from Beijing University on modern Chinese literary history in their studies since 1949 and make a further exploration into their meta-narratives of literary history, with archeology and sociology as its main theoretical framework and the relationship between ideology and modern literary history the leading line. According to this dissertation, each literary historical theory in terms of its meta-narrative corresponds to a paradigm in literary historical study. It consists of five chapters:Chapter One: This chapter sets out first to analyze Draft on New Chinese Literary History, an important volume on Chinese literary history by Wangyao, regarding it as a reflection of the isomorphism between the author's new literary history theory and revolution ideology, which is resulted from the appropriating of representation system by ideology. Then it takes a close look at Wang's significant shift from his earlier stance to the enlightening perspective on literary history after the Cultural Revolution in his later years. In the final stage of his life, Wangyao's literary historical meta-narrative displays a kinship with the Enlightenment stance represented by Hushi.Chapter Two: This chapter is an analysis of Yan Jiayan's theory on modern literary history by revealing that his theory is multi-dimensional and follows the model of the 1980s. Following it is a discussion of the theory of Sun Yushi, whose study on poetry signifies a feature of institutionalization and systematicalization and exhibits his ideal and ambition toward constructing a modern poetics for the Oriental people. As a final part of this chapter, a discussion of Xie Mian's theory of modern Chinese literary history presents that it is thematically entrenched in a tragic tone and has demonstrated a holistic thinking with an imprint of the 1980s' model. In all, the literary historians of this generation in issue have served mainly to restore and represent the multi-dimensional panorama of modern Chinese literary history with their research models closely related to the spirit of the 1980s.Chapter Three: This chapter sets its focus on the theories of Qian Liqun, Chen Pingyuan and Wen Rumin. For Qian Liqun, suffering has been the most salient and important motif in his study of modern Chinese literary history, which facilitates the formation of his profound insight in elevating Chinese people's spiritual plight to a level of spiritual support, and thus endows his study a transcendental quality. Meanwhile, an analysis of Qian's structure of ideas is made to show some of his ideological traps. As to Chen Pingyuan, he has been taking a unique route in his study of modern Chinese literary history in order to pursue the development of Chinese literature in its own course. In his pursuit, Chen Pingyuan has struggled out of the limitation set by the established thoughts and ideas of the May Fourth pioneers, which arouses his great interest in the historical connectiveness during the course of his research. Another point is made that out of his persistent adherence to academic independence and transcendence, Chen has been consciously seeking the autonomy and self-sufficiency of literary history and its study. Conclusively, Chen's academic research helps reveal an academic self-consciousness awakened from sleep since the May Fourth. To Wen Rumin, his study of modem Chinese literary history is characterized with a cautious but sound style, which reflects a need for a disciplinary stability and independence of modern literature as a conventional rule for disciplinary construction. Unlike their last-generation predecessors, the literary historians of this generation under scrutiny and their study serve to promote a self-reflectivity orientation in modern literature study in a sense of meta-narrative.Chapter Four: With its focus on Kong Qingdong and Li Yang, this chapter makes an analysis of the "New Left" perspective on modern Chinese literary history, pointing out that it stays in a close tie with revolutionary ideology by linking modern literary history to power and reducing the former to a status of tool and accessory.Chapter Five: As the final part, this chapter casts a comprehensive look at the previous chapters and spares a discussion on the transcendental-preoccupation issue in modern Chinese literary historical study, and makes further attempts to map out some thinking patterns on the ways to actualize the preoccupation.