異夢為何同床？：中文現代詩中現代主義詩學與國族再造的糾結

Strange Bedfellows: The Entangled Relationship between Modernist Poetics and Nation-Rebuilding in Modern Chinese Poetry

本文從詩在白話文運動中的矛盾角色出發，爬梳自民國時期的大陸至四九年後的臺灣的中文現代詩中，現代主義詩學與國族再造工程間的奇特糾結。並據此探討五四以來現代性的衝擊如何產生了重建國族的焦慮，並導致現代性崇拜及現代化大業無以為繼的擔憂。在追求國族重建的大目標下，詩的矛盾角色──既是最需被改革的對象，卻又承擔起了輸入及建立現代性的先鋒角色──凸顯的正是上述現代化的焦慮。這種焦慮使五四的知識分子將詩視為傳統文化的最佳表徵，從而相信詩的改造可以促成國族形式的再造。詩被賦予的矛盾角色正彰顯了當時對現代性的草率翻譯，包括現代詩被一再的曲解為浪漫詩及現代主義詩學被貶抑為頹廢與耽溺，都是具體的例子。對現代性的誤讀／誤譯原因有二，首先中國當時為國族重建所賴的布爾喬亞現代性，正是西方詩現代主義革命的對象，其次，國族重建時所需的普遍啟蒙，似也無法透過現代主義詩婉轉晦澀的語言達成。這個誤讀形塑了現代主義詩與國族再造的緊張關係，從四九年以前的大陸到鄉土文學時期的臺灣，現代主義詩一再受到國族重建大業的質疑。雖然前者質疑因為擁（布爾喬亞）現代性，後者質疑則出於反（布爾喬亞）現代性，但其中卻有一貫的脈絡：為了掩蓋現代性造成的創傷而形成的一種極端的反傳統心態。然而，反傳統卻表現在對現代主義的曖昧態度，則凸出了華人社會有意或無意的混淆了西方現代性的內在歧異。雖然對西方現代性的翻譯過程中亦頗有無心插柳的「創意增益」但付出代價亦難以計量。當務之急乃是以另類現代性或多重現代性的視角重審現代性，正視文化乃是不斷互相（而非單向）翻譯的過程，擺脫必須亦步亦趨西方的時不我予感，以俾超克現代性，重新定位傳統文化。 Starting from the curious status of poetry m the Vernacular Movement, this essay attempts to delineate the trajectory of Modernist poetics in modern Chinese poetry from Republican China through post-49 Taiwan in terms of its entangled relationship with the project of national rebuilding so that we can take a closer look at how the impact of modernity produced an anxiety for national rebuilding that led to a fetishization of Western modernity and a sense of the project of modernization being always under threat. The fact that under the goal of national rebuilding poetry was paradoxically both the paradigmatic symbol of outdated traditional culture(s) and the vanguard to establish a beachhead for modernity serves best to reveal the above-mentioned anxiety. For this anxiety prompted the May Fourth intellectuals to see poetry as most representative of traditional culture(s) and to hastily believe that the reform of poetry would bring about a successful rebuilding of the national form. The paradoxical status of poetry points toward among other things the phenomenon of uninformed translation of 'modernity', one that is manifested for instance in the mistranslation of poetic modernity as Romantic poetry and the misperception of Modernist poetics as decadent and self-indulgent. This misreading or mistranslation of modernity was the result of two factors: first, the national rebuilding m the Republican era relied mainly on bourgeois modernity, which however had been the target of the Modernist revolution. Secondly, the universal enlightenment required by national rebuilding seemed impossible to carry out utilizing the obscure and indirect language of Modernist poetry. This misreading set the trajectory of modern Chinese poetry where Modern(ist) poetics was constantly under scrutiny and attack by the self-styled national rebuilders from both Republican China and the Nativist period m post-49 Taiwan. Although the former embraced bourgeois modernity while the latter rebuked it, what provided continuity in this trajectory was an extreme anti-traditionalist mentality, which had been a response to the trauma caused by the impact of modernity. That this prejudice should manifest itself in a hostility toward Modernism reveals the fact that the Chinese societies have wittingly or unwittingly conflated the different strands within western modernity. Even though in the process of translation, there have been interesting 'creative enrichments', they were achieved not without sacrifices. What needs to be done urgently therefore is to re-examine the idea of modernity from the vantage point of alternative modernity or multiple modernity and re-conceptualize culture as a constant process of mutual (not one-way) translation, thus overcoming the 'denial of coevalness' and repositioning traditional culture(s) within the context of modernity.