A Study Of Western Literature Engagement Theory In The Twentieth Century

"commitment" as a concept,through Sartre’s theoretical interpretation,has been extended from the philosophical field to the literary field,and has been subject to unique interpretations from different theorists based on their own ideological positions during the translation process into different languages,resulting in ambiguity in the connotation of "commitment".However,it is precisely these divergent interpretations and the ambiguity of their connotations that demonstrate the vitality and creativity of "commitment" as a conceptual idea,and at the same time create complex tension within the terminology,enriching the discourse resources of literary commitment theory.Therefore,literary commitment theory is not just a static and isolated theoretical product,but rather a discourse practice that revolves around the core term of "commitment" and provides theoretical interpretations based on its own literary vision of the relationship and causes between literature and society,aesthetics and politics,showing a polyphonic and multifaceted nature.Sartre’s literary commitment theory,as an essential component of the discourse practice of literary commitment theory,is crucial in leading out the other voices in discourse practice and therefore cannot be bypassed.In his literary commitment theory,Sartre first distinguishes between commitment and non-commitment in the internal categories of art from a symbolic perspective,namely,instrumental pragmatics.On the level of constructing a meaningful world in prose,he confers legitimacy and justification on the commitment of prose and asserts that prose with an action-oriented meaning propels change by revealing situations,thus advocating that "writing is commitment".Since commitment already exists,Sartre further emphasizes the importance of the author’s sense of responsibility and real-life stance,affirming the author’s subjectivity displayed by the firm will and clear objectives invested in writing as a self-being existence,advocating that authors should speak out for their times and express their views on reality.This also reveals Sartre’s expectations of the intellectual role of writers,presenting the mutual entanglement of the two identities of writers and intellectuals in Sartre’s theory.Sartre believes that freedom is the goal of literary commitment,or that literary commitment is a free contract concluded between the author and the reader in a dialectical process,i.e.,experiencing the importance of oneself in the whole existence through others as a medium.However,this abstract freedom in the dimension of literary ontology has quietly undergone a conceptual shift in Sartre’s context,gradually pointing to the specific democratic freedom issues in reallife political situations,revealing the obvious political practice color of his literary commitment theory.Since Sartre proposed his theory of literary commitment,debates and criticisms surrounding the issue of "literary commitment" have continued to emerge,presenting theoretical divergences among different scholars.Opponents such as Blanchot and Barthes,when faced with the question of whether or not literature should intervene,have questioned Sartre’s claim that prose language can clearly express meaning,and have provided evidential analysis of its ambiguity and uncertainty from the perspective of literary language.They have also challenged the authoritative position of the author,which is fully present in Sartre’s theory of commitment,by leveraging the disappearance and dissipation of the "patriarchal" authorial subjectivity in the text,advocating for the author’s retreat and the decentralization of the text to promote plurality and diversity.As Sartre’s former literary companion,Camus maintained a considerable level of vigilance towards the extreme political tendencies implied in Sartre’s theory of literary commitment,based on the relationship between literature and politics.He questioned Sartre’s obsession with political effectiveness and intense commitmentism,arguing that literature should maintain a perpetual and reflective distance from reality and politics,and advocated for a more cautious and restrained attitude towards literary commitment.Of course,new thinking on "literary commitment" has continued to push boundaries,providing increasingly diverse answers to the question of how literature can intervene.Although Barthes questioned Sartre’s theory of literary commitment,he did not belong to the two extremes of commitment and non-commitment,but instead shifted the focus of literary commitment to the field of form,which Sartre had relegated to a mere carrier of content.He then considered the writer’s participation in history at the level of form,advocating for the intrinsic dimensions and historical political nature of form itself,and proposing the concept of "writing at zero degree" to realize fragmented and non-ordered commitment in the space of formal reality.Adorno did not agree with Sartre’s politically-oriented literary commitment,criticizing the overt and direct nature of Sartre’s commitmentism,and instead regarded commitment as an inherent artistic quality located in the higher stage of reflection,close to the essence of aesthetics.He advocated for literature to deny reality through its metaphysical self-discipline,and to resist oppressive forces and liberate non-identity in a hidden and tortuous way,achieving "non-commitmental commitment." Lancelot,on the basis of examining different theoretical perspectives on literary commitment before,proposed a new concept of "the politics of literature" regarding the issue of literary commitment,arguing that literature and politics have a qualitative overlap and "common components," and thus politics is an inherent part of literature,breaking through the traditional dichotomous thinking pattern of literature and politics.From the micro-level of molecular politics and elemental politics,he argued for the possibility of literary commitment and proposed a sensory-based theory of literary commitment.Overall,the proposition of "literary commitment" has given rise to different theoretical discourses,which demonstrate the continuity and rich implications of literary commitment theory and the inherent succession of thinking structures and knowledge forms.These discourses reveal that the understanding of literary commitment has evolved from a binary opposition between literary autonomy and heteronomy,aesthetics and politics,and form and content to a more generative approach that emphasizes connections,diversity,and interactivity.From different perspectives and dimensions,these discourses continue to stimulate and inspire theoretical imagination and possibilities for the current literary commitment issue.