The so-called "Logocentrism" mode of thinking essentially refers to all theoretical construction methods that try to rationalize and order the world in an abstract way, so as to grasp the world. This is the fundamental basis of human subjectivity, the fundamental basis that human beings think they are the masters of all things in nature, and the fundamental reason that human beings often fall into the mistakes of self-righteousness and arrogance. In this way of thinking, whether in nature or human society, what people can perceive with their senses is always restricted by what some people can't perceive. Human rationality is to capture transcendental rationality through perceptual experience. The essence, law, ultimate cause, authenticity, truth, noumenon, entity, idea and stipulation that people often say in the history of western philosophy are all the products of this way of thinking (of course, there are great differences between Chinese and western ways of thinking, and they are also manifested as Logocentrism). )。 In fact, there is no such transcendental thing in the comfortable world. They are the products of human thinking, specifically the externalization or projection of "logos". In other words, "logos" is not an objective existence, but a way of thinking. It contains people's potential needs, desires and helpless struggles when facing the infinite world. When Feuerbach pondered over the spiritual edifices of German classical philosophy carefully constructed by a series of world-class thinkers, he was surprised to find that there was a profound internal identity between these magnificent edifices and the crumbling Christian castles: they were all forms of human alienation! Today, this identity is based on the way of thinking called "logos".
The so-called "essentialism", which is deeply hated by post-modern thinkers, is one of the main manifestations of "Rutgers Centrism" thinking mode. This "essentialism" presupposes the dichotomy of "phenomenon and essence" of everything, and holds that as long as the "essence" of a thing is grasped, it will be grasped by people. Inspired by this concept, in the process of pursuing "essence", human beings are constantly playing the game of catching soap bubbles: once caught, they disappear. Every time a person grasps the "essence" of things, he will have a brief excitement, but he will soon find that things still exist in a simple and complicated way. For him, it still seems to be known and unknowable. Postmodernism, which does not recognize any law, seems to prove the law that an ancient Greek philosopher has already discovered: the more a thinker knows his ignorance, the deeper his thoughts will be. A series of post-structuralists and deconstructionists who don't believe in any truth are scrambling to prove the truth that all human knowledge is an illusion created by the heart. In short, in postmodernism, the so-called "essence" is just a label people put on things to prove their control over them.
The so-called need of ideological value intervention means that any kind of ideology will "invade" the territory of literary theory, become its master, and then control the whole literary field. The most concise and vivid means is to label literature as the research object of literary theory. To determine the "essence" of literature is to formulate the rules of literature and delimit the scope of literary activities. Any literary creation, appreciation and criticism beyond this scope will lose its legitimacy, so it will inevitably be excluded and suppressed. For example, defining the "essence" of literature as "the product of social life reflected in the writer's mind" or "social ideology" means that all literature must necessarily and truly reflect social life, otherwise it is not real literature. But what is "a true reflection of social life"? This implies the intervention of value: any "social life" that conforms to this ideological core value standard is "real", otherwise it is false. In fact, the conclusion that literature interferes with society has been presupposed here. For another example, defining the "essence" of literature as "natural expression of personal emotion" or "emotion recalled in peace" presupposes the rationality of individualism: individuality needs to be publicized, and freedom is the natural human right of individual life.
Of course, the setting of the "essence" of literature generally appears in the form of objective science, which seems to be trying to avoid the possibility of value intervention. For example, when China defined the "essence" of literature as "aesthetics" in the mid-1980s, people took a pious and objective attitude to rehabilitate the literary concept distorted by the ultra-left ideological trend. They really believe that only "aesthetics" is the essence of literature. Their job is to bring people's understanding of literature back to the scientific track from ideology. They may not realize at all that the real reason that prompted them to make such regulations is actually the same ideology. This so-called "radical" work is not to replace wrong and wrong views with objective and scientific views, but to replace another with one idea. This shows that any discussion about the essence must be based on a discourse construction of thinking mode or values, and there can be no pure objectivity or scientificity here.
But does this mean that the "essence" of literature is a worthless pseudo-question? You can't judge it so simply.
Essence and phenomenon are the most important pair in Hegel's dialectics. His two Logics devoted a lot of space to this category. In Hegel's view, essence refers to the true colors of things. He said: "We often think that the task or purpose of philosophy is to understand the essence of things. This only means that things should not stay in their directness, but should point out that they are intermediary or based on other things. The direct existence of things, in this view, is like an epidermis or a curtain, and there is still essence inside or behind it. " This means that what people can directly perceive is not the stable and permanent nature of things (it is variable), so it is not the decisive factor that makes things become what they are now (it is the decider). The factor behind the direct existence of things is permanent and decisive, that is, essence. But for human senses, everything can only exist as it is, that is to say, there is only directness before the senses, and there is no essence. So what is the essence? It can only exist relative to people's thinking ability. The existence of human senses is existence, and the existence of human thinking is also existence. Just as the existence of "direct" is inseparable from the senses, the existence of "essence" is inseparable from human thinking. So Hegel said: "Essence is a set concept, and the provisions in essence are only relative ..." He also said: "In existence, everything is direct, on the contrary, in essence, everything is relative." The so-called "direct" refers to what is visible and tangible, that is, what is attractive to the senses, that is, what it is, without any conditions; The so-called "setting" and "relative" refer to the abstract grasp of things by thinking, which is conditional, that is, comparing with other things (finding out the * * * sameness of similar things through comparison, but also distinguishing the differences from other things. )。 Therefore, although essence is not the arbitrary creation of thinking, it cannot exist independently without thinking. On the contrary, it exists only for thinking about the brain.
The division between nature and phenomenon is easy to understand. For example, if we say that the tree in front of us is a tree that exists directly, then the internal basis for deciding that it is a tree rather than a grass is the essence. This essence exists not only as a direct tree at present, but also in all trees, and it is * * *. You can't say that the essence of a tree is invisible and intangible, so it doesn't exist. That's a mental illusion. Here, although essence is a "set concept", it does have objectivity and universality, and it is based on countless "directness". However, for social existence and spiritual existence, the word "essence" has become a highly subjective and uncertain concept like "truth". Generally speaking, this concept does not refer to objective and universal things, but only refers to the speaker's subjective attitude. For example, some people say that class struggle is the essence of society. What does this mean? First of all, it is proved that the speaker speaks from the standpoint of the ruled in this society, not the ruler. Because no ruling class admits that its rule is based on class oppression (with a few exceptions, for special political purposes). Rulers always emphasize social integration. Secondly, it proves that the speaker tries to use class contradictions to change the social status quo. Defining the essence of society as class struggle means that only through class struggle can the social form be changed. Therefore, emphasizing the importance of class struggle is to use the purpose of class struggle. From this point of view, this definition of social essence is full of political color and is the product of a position. For another example, what does it mean to say that human nature is freedom? First of all, it shows that the speaker feels that he is not free, and he strives for freedom. If he felt that he had freedom, he would not define it as essence. To define a thing as its essence is to attach great importance to it. And people only value what they don't have. Secondly, it means the speaker's unprecedented concern for personal interests, which is the product of individualism and therefore the bourgeois view. Its implied meaning is the strong desire of the bourgeoisie to get rid of traditional ideas and power control. So what caused this?
For the speaker or cognitive, natural existence is completely different from social existence and spiritual existence. Their differences mainly come from the speaker's position and attitude or cognition. In the face of natural existence, the speaker can exist as a real subject. A real relationship between subject and object can be established here. In this regard, Marx had a very incisive exposition in "1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts". Later, from the perspective of psychology, Piaget's structuralist genetic epistemology was further systematically demonstrated. In their view, the two-way construction between subject and object is the basic mechanism of knowledge formation. Although there is a process of objectification and adaptation, the subject is the subject and the object is the object. There are obvious differences between them, which are hard to confuse. For example, when a person concentrates on a bamboo, he is completely in the dominant position, and what kind of bamboo looks like in his eyes is determined by his visual ability, characteristics and psychological state. Bamboo is just an objective thing that exists silently for him. That is to say, in the cognitive relationship between them, only the observer as the subject is the variable, and the bamboo as the object is the same. But when two people face each other, the situation is very different: they look at each other and are both subjects of each other. Both are variables. At this time, two people who are both subject and object will identify with each other through their own understanding and identify with themselves through their own understanding of each other. Consciousness and self-consciousness permeate each other and blend into one. So there can't be a simple subject-object relationship here.
The complexity of the problem does not stop there. In fact, the cognitive relationship between people or between people and social history is by no means the relationship between "examination" and "being examined" in the original sense. There is an indispensable intermediary in this relationship-language. It is language that establishes the cognitive relationship between people and between people and social history. It can even be said that it makes people become people, and social history becomes social history, which makes the relationship between subject and object more complicated: the subject becomes passive and constitutes, that is, initiative and passivity are intertwined (the relationship between literary theory and language will be discussed in detail, which will not be expanded here for the time being). )。 The "essence" of the object revealed in such a relationship between subject and object is obviously difficult to have real objectivity.
So does this mean that the "essence" problem has become a meaningless pseudo-problem in the field of humanities and social sciences? The answer is no, in fact, although the word "essence" is increasingly rare in contemporary academic discourse under the influence of postmodernism (unless it is the object of criticism), the meaning he refers to can still be seen everywhere. For example, Foucault's famous saying "knowledge is power", if expressed in Hegel's words, is "the essence of knowledge lies in power". There is no essential difference between these two propositions. For another example, postmodern historical philosophy holds that "history is text", which is obviously quite different from traditional historical view. But it only emphasizes the subjectivity of historical narrative, which can be regarded as a deeper and more objective understanding of historical essence. Even deconstruction, which hates essentialism, can't really get rid of the entanglement of essence. As an American scholar said: "Just as deconstruction tries to dismantle the ideological system, according to its hypothesis, deconstruction is also centered on logos." 1 the reason why deconstruction wants to dismantle the previous ideological systems is, of course, because they are false. Therefore, this dismantling behavior itself implies an attempt to expose the truth. Revealing the inner truth through the false surface is the core concept of Hegel's essentialism. Any discourse system always refers to something, or something that actually exists, or subjective consciousness, and it is impossible to speak without reference. As Marx said, if things are their phenomena, then all science is redundant. Obviously, post-structuralism and deconstruction have no intention of denying the necessity of all speech, otherwise they will have no need to speak. Either reveal something or keep your mouth shut-this is the general rule that any research must follow. If things are what you see and there is nothing to reveal at all, then everyone should be silent!
Post-structuralism and deconstruction are not nonsense, and their criticism of essentialism is also of great value. The idea of trying to grasp (understand and control) something once and for all by grasping an eternal so-called "essence" is undoubtedly ridiculous, but this is a dream that human first-class brains have been dreaming for thousands of years, and even many people are still doing it now. The greatest contribution of post-structuralism and deconstruction is to awaken people from this dream. But this does not mean that people should live in a daze after waking up from their dreams. We can't deprive the brain of the right to think just because it has had unrealistic dreams. It is impossible to think without generality, universality and essence. Because the formalization or abstraction, generalization and even metaphysics of the world is precisely the unchangeable nature of human beings.
However, the way of thinking can be changed and must be changed from time to time. Let's go back to Hegel. He pointed out that essence is "set", that is, it can't exist without human thinking like the directness of things. Essence is the essence of things, that is, objective existence, but it does not exist for any senses, but only for the thinking brain. This is the truth that Marx revealed in his youth: the essence of external things exists relative to some essential power of human beings. Vision and smell are essential forces, which are confirmed by shape, color and smell; Thinking or rational thinking is also an essential force, which is confirmed by essence, law and generality. Therefore, what matters is not what to give up, but what to keep. After the sacred and eternal "essence" loses its dazzling aura, we call for limited and concrete essence. Hegel has long provided us with a theoretical basis: all the internal provisions of essence are relative. The so-called "relative" is conditional and limited, that is, it is effective within a certain range and level. There is no absolute essence or commonality in the world, and the idea of mastering the so-called "essence" of a thing can only be a myth. However, if the scope or level is set, the situation will be completely different under the limited premise: we will find that we can't make any meaningful speech without essence, regularity or generality. If all theoretical discourses are regarded as arbitrary language games without any definite meaning, it is tantamount to denying the possibility of human consciousness and self-consciousness, which is obviously unfounded.
It is really impossible for literary theory to reveal the essence of literature without any restrictions. This is not because of the incompetence of literary theory, but because there is no such essence at all. However, the reason why literary theory is "theory" rather than anything else refers to the essence or commonness behind literary phenomena, otherwise what is the use of literary theory? However, due to the differences in time, space and level, the nature or universality of literary phenomena is limited. For example, fiction (or virtuality) can be said to be one of the more common essential characteristics of literature, but it can only be established within a certain range: it is true for the history of western literature, which is dominated by narrative literature, but not for the ancient literature of China, which is dominated by lyric literature. For another example, "speaking with images" should be a more universal literary essential feature, but the metaphysical poems in Jin Dynasty, many Taoist poems in Shao Yong in Song Dynasty and metaphysical poems in Chen Xianzhang in Ming Dynasty are not within this scope. Moreover, many forms of discourse that do not belong to literature are also spoken by images, such as many religious and moral sermons.
However, what are we doing when we talk about a literary phenomenon with a certain theoretical attitude (that is, not from the perspective of feeling or experience)? Are you repeating or describing this phenomenon? Of course not. There is no doubt that we are making some judgment on this. Logically, any judgment is based on generalization and induction, that is, it involves some generality. Universality is precisely the essence of a certain level phenomenon. For example, we say, "This novel is expressionist." This means that we are sure that this novel and other novels have the same thing called expressionism, and this same thing is generality. Moreover, in the speech of literary theory, when we use a concept to refer to literary phenomena, we often presuppose a certain degree of literary essence or generality. For example, we often say: "In the process of literary development, there are often some great geniuses." In this sentence, the concept of "literary development" refers to a series of literary phenomena arranged in diachronic order. But since the word "development" is used, it shows that the speaker agrees with the concept of social evolution, so it goes without saying that he regards the diachronic arrangement of literary phenomena as an orderly, inevitable and regular operation process. This is an understanding of the nature or generality of literature. Unless you don't make any judgment, you can't get rid of the essential entanglement. Whether literature is a reflection of social life, an expression of emotion, a daydream or a game of language, it is an understanding of the nature of literature and indeed reveals universality to some extent.
Therefore, at present, the general tendency of academic circles to deny the essence is a manifestation of nervousness. After giving up the unrealistic hope of absolute essence, it's time to look for relative essence. In fact, except for a few diehards who are still looking for the essence that does not exist there, and some overcorrectors who refuse any universality, most people of insight turn to limited fields to seek relative universality. It should be the task of today's literary theory to reveal the relative stipulation of specific literary phenomena in a limited scope and at a certain level.
Literature is an art that vividly and literally reflects the objective reality with language and writing as tools, including drama, poetry, novels, essays and so on. Among them, all kinds of original literature websites are the most comprehensive, including all forms and contents from children's literature to poetry, prose, novels, prose, lyrics, scripts and academics!
The Object, Scope and Method of the Study of Literary Essence
In any scientific research work, effectively solving a problem depends on finding the correct method to solve the problem, which includes determining the research object, selecting the research scope, and finding out the specific research methods that can adapt to this object and this scope. The basic requirements of this methodology are also applicable to the discussion of the nature of literature.
To understand the essence of literature, we can only look for it from the literature itself. However, the diversification of literature itself has caused certain difficulties for people to grasp. Literature is not static, nor is there only one type. Vertically, it has its own evolutionary history; Horizontally, it has various types; Between criss-crossing, there are various trends of thought and schools. In the history of literary theory criticism at home and abroad, people's views on the essence of literature are inconsistent or even contradictory, which is directly related to the diversity brought about by the development of literature itself, except that their understanding is restricted by their own subjective conditions and social environment. Therefore, it is too general to point out that the object of understanding the essence of literature is literature itself, and to determine the research object should also take into account the continuous development of literature, and grasp the research object in development rather than static.
To this end, we must first regard literature as a whole. The essence of literature summarized by literary principles refers to the basic nature that can cover all kinds of literary phenomena and belongs to the overall social ideology of literature, rather than the characteristics of a certain literary type. The essence of literature cannot be fully embodied in individual literary styles, such as novels or poems, nor can it be included in a certain literary trend of thought or genre, such as realism, romanticism or modernism. The object of investigating the essence of literature is all the diverse and profound literary facts composed of past and present literary phenomena. The essence of literature should be the result of highly summarizing the whole literature. This is the requirement of understanding developing literature.
Secondly, we should also see that the development of literature is not only manifested in the diversity brought by the continuous evolution and expansion of content and form, but also the historical performance of literature from infancy to maturity. That is, literature constantly gets rid of and melts all kinds of non-literary factors attached to itself, from heteropoly to pure, from simple to rich, thus gradually forming its own special properties. The history of literature is an evolutionary history. The modern form of literature is obviously more conscious and mature than the ancient form of literature, so the study of the essence of literature should focus on the modern form of literature. Of course, the development of literature is endless, and any mature form is relative. In this sense, our discussion is only close to but not exhaustive understanding of the essence of literature.
In order to understand the essence of literature, what scope should literary principles put the above objects in for investigation? We must expand the scope of studying the essence of literature, take historical materialism as the guide, use systematic analysis, proceed from the whole of the object, and comprehensively grasp the object in the interrelation, interaction and mutual restriction between the whole and the elements.