臺灣「反共文學」創作範式的形構、邊界想像與作家經驗

"The Aesthetic Form, Boundary Imagination and Writers Experience of Taiwan Anti-Communism Literature"

回顧臺灣文學發展史，「反共文學」的出現自是重要的一環，但受制於創作審美評價過於單一化、負面化，連帶導致文學史論述流於一再重複和停滯不前。對此，本文嘗試提出新研究方法，逕將「反共文學」視為戰後臺灣文學史上重要文學創作「範式」去加以觀察，這是深刻體認到無論對於反共文學接納態度如何，皆無法抹去、忽略其長期存在臺灣文學史的事實，尤其是自1950年代到1980年代的漫長影響時間跨度。至於本文所討論的面向，包括：「反共文學」在戰後臺灣文學史上出現時的島內文壇狀態如何？與戰後初期文藝思潮的銜承、斷裂與嫁接關係何在？官方與民間究竟怎樣推動、介入這個高度展現政治特質的文學新範式？作家個人會有怎樣的迎拒反應？而當「反共文學」成為一種主要創作趨向或書寫模式時，這個文學創作新範式的相關文藝理論與創作方法，是怎樣成為文學群體關注、討論、理解與學習的對象？其間的認識論如何？再者，「反共文學」的思想內涵與創作敘事特徵相較一般文學，除了「反共」之外，是否還有其他耐人玩味的文藝意蘊？或是因之凸顯了反共文藝理論具有哪些特殊之處？如何辯證文學與政治之間的主客關係？作家的因應思考或想像實踐面貌為何？此處由反共文學範式與作家關係論入徑的探討，實際將會牽引出國家體制、文藝政策、教育生產、知識話語、文學本體、作者、創作策略之間的複雜辯證關係。

"The appearance of anti-communism literature is an important part of Taiwanese literature phylogeny. However, when it came to aesthetic, it was considered highly unitary and negative. As a result, the discourse of Taiwan’s anti-communism literature repeated itself for a long time. But like it or not, the fact of its long-time existence (form 1950 to 1980) and influence of anti-communism literature cannot be erased. This paper tries to bring up a new research method, by considering “anti-communism literature” as an important “aesthetic form” in post-war Taiwan. The following questions will be discussed in this paper: What was the literary environment when anti-communism literature appeared? What is its relationship with early post-war literary trends? Was there any succession, breaking or grafting? How did the official and the folk to intervene this new aesthetic writing form with highly demonstrating political traits? What was the reactions of writers? How did this aesthetic form, its literary theory and methods be concerned, discussed, learned and understood by writers when it became the mainstream of that time? In short, what was the epistemology behind? Also, did it have any other aesthetic features beyond being political? How do we understand the dialectic relationship between literature and politics? What is the subject, and what is the object? These questions will lead to a complex dialectical relations among state institution, literary policy, and educational production, discourse of knowledge, literary ontology, author, and their strategies."