台灣文壇向左轉——楊逵與三○年代的文學批評

Taiwanese Literature Turning Left: Yang Kui and the Literary Criticism in the 1930's

楊逵在三○年代台灣文壇的登場，意味著馬克思主義與新文學之間的緊密銜接。做為左翼思潮的實踐者，楊達不僅從事具有普羅色彩的文學創作，而且也投入階級立場鮮明的文學批評。有關他文學技藝的成就，歷來學界已有成果豐碩的研究，唯獨對於他的文學批評，似乎還未有深入的討論。本文的研究，希望能填補這方面的空缺。 即使到了晚年，楊逵再三強調他一生所堅持的思想信仰是「人道的社會主義者」。但是，什麼是人道的社會主義？歷來的學者並沒有給予確切的定義。本文從這個命名切入，探索楊遠在參加二○年代農民運動與三○年代文學運動時的思想根源。所謂「人道的」應該是他寬容的態度，以及對弱勢者的關懷。所謂社會主義，則是指他對殖民地體制與資本主義的批判立場。如果這樣的理解可以接受，則楊逵所堅持的人道社會主義精神並非只表現在文學實踐上而已，遠在二○年代農民運動日熾之際就已在貫徹這樣的精神。 即使到了晚年，楊逵再三強調他一生所堅持的思想信仰是「人道的社會主義者」。但是，什麼是人道的社會主義？歷來的學者並沒有給予確切的定義。本文從這個命名切入，探索楊遠在參加二○年代農民運動與三○年代文學運動時的思想根源。所謂「人道的」應該是他寬容的態度，以及對弱勢者的關懷。所謂社會主義，則是指他對殖民地體制與資本主義的批判立場。如果這樣的理解可以接受，則楊逵所堅持的人道社會主義精神並非只表現在文學實踐上而已，遠在二○年代農民運動日熾之際就已在貫徹這樣的精神。 在三○年代的文學運動者中，楊逵的作品，無論是小說或評論，都具有濃厚的階級意識。他在《台灣新文學》上發表的批評文字，立場前後一致，始終主張文學必須為無產階級大眾發聲。同樣的，他也不是教條主義者，而是活潑地、辯證地在藝術追求與階級立場之間做彈性的調整。然而，他的階級立場對於台灣文藝聯盟的領導者來說，又是過於傾向左派。因此，他選擇離開文藝聯盟，這是他在反殖民運動中所經歷的第二次決裂。 楊逵的「人道的社會主義」精神，置放在兩次決裂的行動中來檢驗，自然可以找到較為恰當的定義。

As a self-dubbed 'humanitarian socialist' throughout his life, Yang-Kui (1905-1985) had played a mild role both in the left-wing political movement during the 1920's and in the leftist literary movement during the 1930's under Japanese rule. Much attention and discussion have been directed to the artistic achievements in his writing of fiction, but little to his literary criticism which deserves close examination. This paper seeks to explain why Yang Kui chose to convert his political activity into literary writing after he had been expelled from the camp of the peasant movement in 1929. With his strong belief in socialism, Yang Kui, when departing from the political group, came to realize that literature as a tool for antagonizing colonization was a proper way to enlighten general mass in colonial Taiwan. However, his pursuit of Marxist literary theory led him again to break with members in the literary organization he had joined. The position he took in the literary movement was unwelcome by both the rights and leftists., simply because he was too mild from the left while too radical from the right. This paper proposes to seek an interpretation to clarify his writing strategies in literary criticism during this controversial period.