| 题名 |
Aymani Bugzâr-o-Jâye Khawf Bâsh: Addressing Disciplinary Crisis in Comparative Literature the Sufi Way |
| 并列篇名 |
「放開安穩，置身憂懼」：以蘇非之道處理比較文學的學門危機 |
| DOI |
10.6184/TKR.201006_40(2).0007 |
| 作者 |
Iftikhar Shafi |
| 关键词 |
比較文學 ； 學術危機 ； 蘇非詩學 ； 魯米 ； comparative literature ； academic crisis ； Sūfī poetics ； Rūmī |
| 期刊名称 |
Tamkang Review |
| 卷期/出版年月 |
40卷2期（2010 / 06 / 01） |
| 页次 |
151 - 175 |
| 内容语文 |
英文 |
| 中文摘要 |
本研究認爲文學傳統悠久的蘇非論述，能夠爲比較文學所面臨的危機提供洞見，特別是在當前充滿不可預測性與不確定性的文化情境之中。本文首先探討此「危機」的本質與成因，隨後藉由波斯詩人魯米(Rumu)的蘇非論述爲現今的文學研究提供適切的策略。由自由人文主義出發的文學之學門認同，注定會面臨危機，這是因爲文學學門最初賴以建立其上的「阿諾德共識」(Arnoldian consensus)，某種程度而言將文學視爲代理宗教，但是規範學門發展的批判操作方式卻保持高度分析性、理性與哲學性。我們可將當前比較文學的危機視爲之前困擾文學學門認同的危機之延續。比較文學在自由人文主義典範的式微過程中確實扮演一角，但是它卻沒有明顯遠離之前規範制度操作的歐洲中心性。魯米提供我們一個機會，將批評不只視爲尋求理解與中和無垠創作的「哲學性」活動。魯米拒絕任何至今無法超越模仿說(mimesis)的批評所提供的安全、封閉與完整性。魯米的批評活動取決於信仰的認識論，亦即將「信仰的詮釋學」優先置於「懷疑的詮釋學」之上。在當前每個人需要具備某種程度的濟慈式否定能力(Keatsian Negative Capability)的文化脈絡之中，魯米的「信仰的詮釋學」或許能成爲我們得以接近文學的途徑。 |
| 英文摘要 |
The paper argues that Sufı discourse, with its long established literary tradition, offers insights that could address the disciplinary challenges facing literature in general, and comparative literature in particular, in the present cultural scenarios of unpredictability and uncertainty. The argument proceeds first by an inquiry into the nature and the possible causes of the ”crisis” in which the discipline finds itself and then employs the Sufı discourse of Rumı to suggest an accommodative strategy for the academic practice of literature at the present time. The disciplinary identity of literature, this paper argues, was from its liberal humanist inception doomed to crisis. This was because the ”Arnoldian consensus” under which the discipline first established itself, saw literature somewhat as a surrogate religion, but at the same time the critical practice that regulated the disciplinary dynamics remained highly analytical, rational, in ways that were ”philosophical” (despite the untenable denials of the likes of Leavis). The present crisis in comparative literature could be seen as a continuation of the crisis that beset the earlier disciplinary identity of literature. Comparative literature did play its part in the fall of the liberal humanist paradigm, but one could say that it did not significantly detach itself from the Euro-centricity that governed the earlier institutional practice. Rumı provides us with an opportunity, an opportunity that is made available by the nature of the discipline itself, to see criticism not simply as a ”philosophical” activity that seeks to comprehend and neutralize the un-boundedness of the creative. Rumı rejects any feeling of security, closure and completeness that is afforded by a criticism that hasn't been able to go beyond mimesis. Such a critical acumen Rumı wants us to let go of and ”clutch at madness”: ”I have tried far-thinking intellect; henceforth I will make myself mad.” The critical activity in Rumı is rather governed by the epistemology of ımân (faith) which prioritizes a certain ”hermeneutics of faith” over a ”hermeneutics of suspicion” (Deconstruction or Lacanian psychoanalysis, for instance). In a cultural context where one needs to possess a certain Keatsian Negative Capability, of being ”in doubts, uncertainties and mysteries without any irritable reaching after fact or reason,” Rumı's ”hermeneutics of faith” may become one way in which we can approach literature. |
| 主题分类 |
人文學 >
人類學及族群研究 人文學 > 外國文學 |
| 参考文献 |
|
