「誰」在乎「文學公民權」？馬華文學政治身份的論述策略

＂Who＂ Cares About ＂Literary Citizenship Right＂? The Strategies of Discoursing the Political Identity of Sinophone Malaysian Literature

本文擬比較張錦忠、黃錦樹與莊華興三位文學評論者對馬華文學政治身份的論述策略，藉此了解不同的批評位置所採取的論述實踐與詮釋策略的複雜考量與難題，同時測量彼此觀點的衝突、折衷或相互參照的可能。三者的「在場」位置與文學主體宣示的形式，甚至是「文學他者」的預設，向來涇渭分明。而我認為思索馬華文學的政治身份，或許可以「文學公民權」（literary citizenship right）為方法意識，以此思考文學公民的文學權利，以及文學與國家和公民等關係。論文也試圖重構「公民」的義涵，揭示所謂的「文學公民」並不隸屬在護照證明抑或單一民族國家的公民身份，對於遠離家鄉的「他方」抑或現時居住地的「此方」，都可以賦有文學公民身份的意義，胥視我們如何能拓展文學公民（權）的意義。文學公民權強調多元文學論述，和多元文化主義相呼應，或有助於打破一元化文學體系的霸權體制。不過它僅僅是一個學術觀點，抑或有務實及實踐的可能性，仍有待更多的討論。 This article attempts to compare the strategies of discoursing the political identity of Sinophone Malaysian literature employed by three literary critics- Tee Kim Tong, Ng Kim Chew and Chong Fah Hing. It seeks to understand the discourse practices and the strategies of interpretation taken by the critics from different positions of criticisms, and to explore the complex considerations and challenges that they face. At the same time, it measures their conflicting views and compromising positions, recalibrating the possibility for cross-references. Three of them have always demonstrated clear-cut distinctions in justifying their stances on their own ＂presences＂ in different locations, their declarations on the subjectivity of literature, or even the presuppositions in articulating the literary ＂Other＂. And I think it might be useful to employ the method of considering the ＂literary citizenship right＂ when reflecting on the political identity of Sinophone Malaysian literature. This is thereby to ponder upon the rights of literary citizens, and the relationship between literature, nation and citizenship. This article also aims at reconstructing the connotation of ＂citizenship＂, arguing that ＂literary citizenship＂ is not attached to the passport identity or the nationality of a single nation-state. Instead, it suggests that whether it is in the ＂other place＂ which is away from home, or in ＂this place＂ that indicates the current place of residence, both of which locations are endowed with the sense of literary citizenship. They supply us with the possible meanings in expanding the idea of literary citizenship （right）. As a whole, literary citizenship emphasizes multiple discourses in literature, which echoes to the notion of multiculturalism. It might help break the hegemonic apparatus of a monocultural literary system. However, it remains an academic point of view, and thus more discussions are needed to explore its pragmaticality and practicability.

This article attempts to compare the strategies of discoursing the political identity of Sinophone Malaysian literature employed by three literary critics- Tee Kim Tong, Ng Kim Chew and Chong Fah Hing. It seeks to understand the discourse practices and the strategies of interpretation taken by the critics from different positions of criticisms, and to explore the complex considerations and challenges that they face. At the same time, it measures their conflicting views and compromising positions, recalibrating the possibility for cross-references. Three of them have always demonstrated clear-cut distinctions in justifying their stances on their own ＂presences＂ in different locations, their declarations on the subjectivity of literature, or even the presuppositions in articulating the literary ＂Other＂. And I think it might be useful to employ the method of considering the ＂literary citizenship right＂ when reflecting on the political identity of Sinophone Malaysian literature. This is thereby to ponder upon the rights of literary citizens, and the relationship between literature, nation and citizenship. This article also aims at reconstructing the connotation of ＂citizenship＂, arguing that ＂literary citizenship＂ is not attached to the passport identity or the nationality of a single nation-state. Instead, it suggests that whether it is in the ＂other place＂ which is away from home, or in ＂this place＂ that indicates the current place of residence, both of which locations are endowed with the sense of literary citizenship. They supply us with the possible meanings in expanding the idea of literary citizenship （right）. As a whole, literary citizenship emphasizes multiple discourses in literature, which echoes to the notion of multiculturalism. It might help break the hegemonic apparatus of a monocultural literary system. However, it remains an academic point of view, and thus more discussions are needed to explore its pragmaticality and practicability.